Dennis M. Cota
How Judge Cota decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On consent jurisdiction in Social Security appeals he remands under sentence four where new and material evidence creates a reasonable possibility of a different outcome, or where an ALJ's step-five vocational findings rest on speculation rather than record evidence.
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21) is granted; 2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is denied; 3. The Commissioner's final decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order”
Cautions
He applies substantial-evidence review tightly, affirming the Commissioner where the ALJ's step-five vocational-expert testimony adequately rebuts the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and the record supports the denial.
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 14, is denied; 2. The Commissioner's final decision is affirmed; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 14, is denied; 2. The Commissioner's final decision is affirmed; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21) is granted; 2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is denied; 3. The Commissioner's final decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 12 and 22, is granted; 2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 18, is denied; 3. The Commissioner's final decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order”
“the undersigned recommends that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 16, be granted; 2. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 18, be denied; and 3. The Commissioner's final decision be reversed and this matter be remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings and recommendations.”
“the undersigned recommends that Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 55, be granted. Given the absence of a triable issue on Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim as against Defendant Wetterer, Defendant's assertion of qualified immunity does not bear evaluation here.”
“the undersigned recommends that Defendant's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 114, be DENIED and that Defendant be required to file an answer to Plaintiff's third amended complaint.”
“It is RECOMMENDED that Defendants' partial motion to dismiss, ECF No. 26, be GRANTED. ... It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's First Amendment access-to-courts claim be DISMISSED as against all defendants without leave to amend for failure to allege an actual injury. ... It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Blanco and Hougland be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“Respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted, but without prejudice to Petitioner's ability to clearly allege facts which might place the case within a Lackawanna exception.”
“Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) be granted.”
“It is RECOMMENDED that Defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF No. 35, be granted and that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders.”
“Plaintiff has not demonstrated that reconsideration under Rule 60(a) or (b) is warranted. ... 1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 24, is denied.”
During statutory screening, he dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because a missing page made the pleading physically incomplete and prevented a merits review. The order stated: "the Court is unable to conduct the statutory screening process because Plaintiff's complaint is incomplete ... 1. Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend."
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Cota is the consent (636(c)) assigned magistrate judge on a Social Security disability docket inherited at the court-wide reassignment when he took the bench in September 2018; he enters the final consent judgment. His broader referral docket carries prisoner civil-rights (42 U.S.C. 1983) and habeas (28 U.S.C. 2254) matters.
Put Judge Cota's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Cota actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Cota's own signed orders and cites them.