Gustavo A. Gelpi
How Judge Gelpi rules, drawn from 42 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Gelpi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Reads procedural sanctions statutes and rules against their harshest reading: dismissal (or a comparably severe remedy) is reserved for a real pattern of misconduct, not a single lapse, and a court must show it considered, and rejected, lesser alternatives first.
“May a district court dismiss a case for counsel's unexcused failure to appear at the final pretrial conference when this is the first and only instance of non-compliance and the district court did not consider a lesser sanction? Under our precedent, the answer is ordinarily, ‘No.’ Yet that is what the district court did here. We find such a draconian sanction unwarranted and thus vacate the dismissal order.”
A careful, whole-statute textualist: reads an ambiguous jurisdiction-allocating state statute in the context of the entire statutory scheme rather than a single clause, and will not let state law be read to strip a federal court of jurisdiction Congress conferred.
“We must begin with the text of the statute. ... [T]he text of the Rhode Island statute, read as a whole, suggests that it covers only the delegation of jurisdiction among state -- not federal -- courts.”
In an immigration appeal, Gelpí enforced the line between appellate review and new factfinding by the agency board. The board could analyze the existing record but could not add an intent finding the immigration judge had never made.
“the BIA conducted additional factfinding beyond that of the IJ and acted beyond the scope of its authority, committing clear legal error and thus abusing its discretion.”
In a political-affiliation case, Gelpí looked past the legislature's trust-position label to the actual functions of the municipal job. The inquiry turned on whether the duties involved meaningful policy discretion rather than technical auditing and compliance work.
“Legislative classification of the position ‘may be entitled to some weight,’ but is not dispositive.”
In reviewing a law criminalizing false emergency statements, Gelpí required the government to explain why counterspeech and narrower tools would not address the asserted imminent harm. A content-based restriction cannot cover substantially more speech than the urgent problem used to justify it.
“Perhaps there are false statements that immediately cause harm such that counter speech would be ineffective, but this law is not limited to that category.”
Procedural preferences
Strictly enforces the appellant's burden to develop arguments squarely and distinctly; will not construct an argument for a party from implication or a stray citation, and treats undeveloped points as waived.
“Judges are not mind readers. Thus, we deem as waived arguments on appeal that an appellant fails to spell out squarely and distinctly. We likewise reject arguments raised only by mere reference or implication, which would otherwise require us 'to do counsel's work, create the ossature for the argument[s], and put flesh on [their] bones.'”
Demands that a sentencing court actually perform the required multi-step analysis, not just gesture at a conclusion: a district court's bare adoption of the PSR's guideline calculation, without identifying the universe of participants or comparing the defendant to the average one, is reversible error even under a deferential standard.
“sentencing courts must give sufficient explanation to 'allow for meaningful appellate review.'”
Gelpí enforced an individual-arbitration term that the parties had knowingly accepted in a prior settlement, including through a choice tied to additional consideration. A later dispute within the clause's scope remained subject to the procedure selected in that agreement.
“because all parties to the appeal knowingly contracted into an agreement where individual arbitration was a mandatory condition, the order to compel would require the parties to proceed as such”
Cautions
At the pleading stage, defers heavily to a litigant's own account of a sincerely held religious belief and declines to weigh in on theological plausibility or doctrinal centrality: a defendant seeking dismissal of a religious-accommodation claim faces a high bar to show the plaintiff's stated beliefs are not religious as a matter of law.
“Thornton's factual allegations, accepted as true, indicate that her beliefs are 'firmly established in [her] faith, the Holy Bible, and [her] conviction that what God has created is perfect' ... At this nascent stage of the litigation, Thornton need allege no more facts -- nor more specific ones -- to show that she holds sincere religious beliefs that conflicted with the vaccination requirement.”
In a data-breach contract case, Gelpí would not use the covenant of good faith to create incident-response rights absent from the agreement. A claimant should identify the specific contractual entitlement allegedly frustrated and evidence of bad faith toward the contracting party itself.
“the covenant could not be used to create rights that did not exist in the contractual relationship.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the district court's application of the ACCA and imposition of a mandatory fifteen-year sentence is AFFIRMED.”
“We find no error in the district court's finding that no extraordinary and compelling reasons exist so as to warrant a reduction of Sepulveda's life sentence.”
“The judgment of the district court dismissing Watson's petition for habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.”
“For all the above, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order of dismissal is affirmed.”
“The district court's prison sentence upon revocation is AFFIRMED, and the imposition of the one-year supervised-release term to follow is REVERSED.”
“Thus, the district court's dismissal of DiCroce's amended complaint is Affirmed.”
“For the reasons stated, Colcord's substantive reasonableness challenge fails, and his sentence is affirmed.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the sentence imposed by the district court is affirmed.”
“We find such a draconian sanction unwarranted and thus vacate the dismissal order.”
Draft for Judge Gelpi with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gelpi, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gelpi's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace