Boyce Ficklen Martin Jr.
Judge Martin no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Martin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Ties an ERISA fiduciary's duty to disclose a not-yet-adopted enhanced benefit plan to a concrete 'serious consideration' trigger -- an employer studying options in the abstract owes no disclosure duty, but once it focuses on a particular plan for a particular purpose (here, a specific plant sale), the duty attaches -- balancing beneficiary protection against the reality that premature disclosure of corporate deliberations can itself cause harm.
“The exception of serious consideration does not apply until a company focuses on a particular plan for a particular purpose.”
In a wetlands Clean Water Act prosecution, reads Solid Waste Agency's rejection of the 'Migratory Bird Rule' narrowly rather than as a wholesale retreat from Riverside Bayview, holding that a hydrological connection through a drain and creek to a navigable river supplies the 'significant nexus' the Act requires -- a reading later echoed by the concurrence in the Supreme Court's own 2006 Rapanos wetlands decision (a related but distinct civil-enforcement case).
“there exists a hydrological connection among the wetlands, the Drain, and the Kawkawlin River, we find an ample nexus to establish jurisdiction.”
Procedural preferences
Near the end of his career, closely polices pattern jury instructions borrowed from out-of-circuit, non-binding authority in civil rights statutes: an instruction asking jurors whether a housing ad focused on the 'suitability of the property to the renter' (permissible) rather than the 'suitability of the renter to the owner' (impermissible) was reversible error because it would let a plainly discriminatory ad escape liability merely by being phrased as a property description.
“we believe a jury, applying the instructions, would have no option but to find for the Connor Group because the advertisement's description... clearly focuses only on the suitability of the apartment to the renter”
Cautions
Applies AEDPA's Brecht harmless-error standard rigorously in the petitioner's favor when a Confrontation Clause violation supplies the only direct (as opposed to inferential) evidence of a disputed mental-state element -- a co-defendant's improperly admitted statement was not harmless because, without it, the jury would have had to infer malice rather than being told it directly.
“with the admission of Hill's statement, the jury no longer needed to engage in any inferences at all.”
Will affirm a steep downward sentencing variance (36% below the low end of the advisory range, down to the mandatory minimum) so long as the district court worked through the Section 3553(a) factors in real depth, including looking past a defendant's criminal-history score to the actual severity of his prior record -- a markedly deferential post-Booker reasonableness posture.
“a district court may conclude that the criminal history category overstates the severity of the defendant's criminal history”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court.”
“the district court's judgment on that issue must be REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio.”
“the district court order denying Jones' petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“the district court's holding that an environmental impact statement is required before this major drawdown may proceed... is affirmed.”
“We find that Congress has waived sovereign immunity for civil penalties under both the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.”
“we believe the district court erred in ruling that as a matter of law Rouge Steel did not act arbitrarily and capriciously... The case is remanded to the district court for consideration.”
“we DISMISS Blue Cross's appeal as non-reviewable by this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)”
“AFFIRM the decision of the district court finding Count I of Zuniga's complaint preempted by ERISA.”
“these appeals be and they hereby are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.”
A historical record
Judge Martin no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.