James F. Metcalf

How Judge Metcalf rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Position
magistrate
Commissioned
2011-11-21
Signed orders read
16

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Michael Alan Bloom v. Carla Hacker-Agnew
CV-18-08328-PCT-SPL · 2019-12-19
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice; That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied”

Joshua Cheyenne Gilliland v. David Shinn
CV-22-01194-PHX-SPL (JFM) · 2023-01-06
Habeas petition (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Doc. 1) is stayed pending completion of Petitioner's state post-conviction relief proceedings”

United States v. Carl Allen Ferrer (third-party petitioner April Ferrer)
CR-18-00464-001-PHX-DJH · 2022-03-21
Forfeiture third party petition (third_party_petitioner) Moot / procedural

“Petitioner April Ferrer's Stipulated Motion to Withdraw Petition, filed November 22, 2021 (Doc. 114) shall be GRANTED; (B) Petitioner April Ferrer's Stipulated Petition for Determination of Third-Party Interest, filed January 11, 2019 (Doc. 58) shall be DEEMED WITHDRAWN; and (C) The Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (Doc. 23) shall be AMENDED to remove as a forfeitable asset the real property at 7409 KingsBarns, The Colony, Texas 75056.”

Jonathan Tate v. Unknown Hernandez
CV-19-05089-SPL (JFM) · 2021-05-21
Motion for extension of time (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time for Service (Doc. 61) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hernandez and this case are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).”

Francisco Guzman v. Shawn Blick
CV-22-00369-PHX-JFM · 2022-05-04

In a pro se civil case assigned to Metcalf without full consent under General Order 21-25, his first R&R on March 14, 2022 recommended sua sponte dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. After the plaintiff's mail was returned undeliverable and he failed to update his address, a second R&R on April 12 recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute. The designated district judge adopted the second R&R and the first in part, dismissing without prejudice and without leave to amend on May 4, 2022.

Baljeet Singh Sidhu v. Chad Wolf
CV-20-01189-PHX-MTL · 2021-01-13
Motions to dismiss (respondent) Granted in part

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) (Doc. 17) is granted in part as provided in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of Respondents' Motion requesting dismissal of this matter (part of Doc. 17) is denied.”

Edward Lamar Carpenter v. Charles L. Ryan
CV18-1631 PHX DGC · 2018-10-24
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed July 16, 2018 (Doc. 13) is construed to include a motion for leave to amend, and that such motion and leave to amend are granted.”

Screening dismissal (court) Granted

“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Defendants Ryan, Rankin, and Thompson are dismissed without prejudice, Count Three of the Second Amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and Defendants Corizon, Ende, Bryce, and Russell are ordered to respond to the Second Amended Complaint as set forth in the R&R.”

Michael Carl Allen v. Sgt. Modi
CV-14-00378-PHX-SPL (JFM) · 2015-08-14
Motion for appointment of counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“That Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 85) is denied”

Felix Verano Ramirez-Ramos v. Charles L. Ryan
CV-18-8086-PCT-NVW (JFM) · 2019-01-17
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“The Clerk shall enter judgment denying and dismissing petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) with prejudice and terminate this action. A request for a certificate of appealability will be denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.”

Shawn Charles Goff v. Trinity Food Service
CV-20-01288-PHX-DLR (JFM) · 2021-09-22
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's objection to the R&R (Doc. 36) is OVERRULED. The R&R (Doc. 33) is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Supplement Complaint (Doc. 25) is DENIED.”

Brian Leslie Finkel v. Naphcare LLC
CV-23-02501-PHX-KML (JFM) · 2025-02-12
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 47) is ADOPTED IN PART as set forth above. The motion to amend (Doc. 41) is DENIED.”

Eric George McNeill v. Ryan Thornell
CV-24-08152-PCT-GMS · 2025-02-11
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 30) and as amended as set forth above is accepted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying and dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) with prejudice.”

Motions to strike (respondent) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants' Motion to Strike Surreply (Doc. 38).”

Draft for Judge Metcalf with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Metcalf, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Metcalf's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace