G. Murray Snow
How Judge Snow rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Snow decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Cautions
A Fourth Amendment plaintiff opposing qualified immunity bears an especially high burden: high-generality Fourth Amendment rules will not defeat immunity, and the plaintiff must cite factually analogous precedent placing the specific question beyond debate.
“In the Fourth Amendment context, he is obliged to cite factually analogous cases with specificity to identify a clearly established right that places the question of whether the officer's conduct was unlawful under the particular circumstances beyond debate. Waid, 87 F.4th at 387-88. He has not done so. Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's Wrongful Detention Claim.”
Monell failure-to-train and failure-to-supervise claims require a pattern of prior similar constitutional violations; a single incident (the plaintiff's own) will not support municipal liability.
“In general, a single incident, in this case the one involving Plaintiff, does not support a failure-to-train theory.”
He treats dismissal as a discovery sanction as an extreme, last-resort remedy: even against a litigant who repeatedly disregarded court orders he preferred lesser sanctions (striking filings) and a merits resolution.
“Nevertheless, the sanction of dismissal is extreme. The Court has stricken many of Plaintiff's filings and specified the ones to which Defendants were to respond. Those are the appropriate and lesser sanctions here. Defendants do not demonstrate sufficient prejudice to justify dismissal. Further, a resolution on the merits is favored.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’/Counter-Claimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 59) is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment of SingleCare Services, LLC (Doc. 42) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) The Motion for Summary Judgment as to the GSA is DENIED; (2) The Motion for Summary Judgment as to the RSA is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 25), is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Harrah’s Arizona Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Advanced Supplementary Technologies Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 35) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 180), is GRANTED”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 182), is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.”
“(4) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) is denied.”
“(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53) is denied.”
“(3) Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 91) is denied as unnecessary.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Keith Rezendes’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Operative Complaint (Doc. 35) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for U.S. Marshal Service (Doc. 24) is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Marketo Incorporated’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as stated above”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Jon Secord’s Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 71) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 66) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s Motion is granted as to Defendant Silk being an ‘employer.’ The Motion is denied as to all other grounds.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Concentric HealthCare Solutions, Kyle Silk, and Chris Bollinger’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72) is DENIED.”
Draft for Judge Snow with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Snow, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Snow's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace