William Q. Hayes
How Judge Hayes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On sec.1983 claims against private actors (bail bondsmen), requires evidence of state action / a conspiracy with police; absent a causal connection to the officers’ conduct, summary judgment goes to the private defendant -- but the core Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against the officer is preserved for trial where material facts are disputed.
“There is insufficient evidence of a causal connection between Macey and Escamilla’s actions and the assertedly unconstitutional actions of Sergeant Holslag.”
Procedural preferences
Strict pre-filing PLRA exhaustion: a prisoner must complete a third-level MERITS decision before filing suit; a group appeal granted at lower levels then rejected at the third level does not exhaust.
“A cancellation or rejection at the third level does not exhaust an inmate[’]s administrative remedies because it is not a decision on the merits of the claim.”
Adopts magistrate R&Rs and conducts de novo review only of the portions a party objects to; unobjected recommendations are adopted in full.
“The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which neither party objects.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 11 |
Granted: 7Granted in part: 2Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Motion other N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 58) is granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is granted. ... the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g).”
“The Commissioner's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) is denied.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Dan Escamilla (ECF No. 215) is granted.”
“the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Sergeant Scott Holslag and City of San Diego (ECF No. 217) is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion is granted as to the first claim by individual heirs Wyatt Smith and Simmons for violation of the Fourth Amendment, the fourth claim ... for battery, and the fifth claim by Simmons for wrongful death, and is otherwise denied.”
“the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Natalie Ann Macey (ECF No. 219) is granted.”
“the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Sergeant David Brecht and City of San Diego (ECF No. 220) is granted.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) is granted. This case is dismissed. ...”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust tribal remedies is GRANTED. (Doc. # 17). Except as discussed above, the Court does not reach the other issues raised by the Motion to Dismiss.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Burnett LLP ... (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed.”
“The Motion for Order Declaring Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants filed by Defendant Burnett LLP ... (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is granted in part and denied in part ... Defendant's Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's FDCPA claim. Defendant's Motion is also GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's request for punitive damages ... Defendant's Motion is DENIED with respect to its request for summary judgment on its bona fide error affirmative defense. Defendant's Motion is DENIED with respect to its request that the Court dismiss this action for lack of Article III standing.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that PIIC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Adjudication of Issues (ECF No. 17) is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding [PIIC's] Duty to Defend (ECF No. 18) is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 265 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 168 days (N = 3).
Broad general-civil + criminal border docket of a long-tenured San Diego district judge (active 2003-2021, senior since 2021-08-01 but still assigned). Sampled mix skews to consumer/telephone statutes (TCPA, FCRA, FDCPA), Social Security appeals, prisoner sec.1983 + state habeas (heavy, consistent with a border district), ERISA/insurance, FOIA, and federal criminal (illegal-reentry). NOT a grant rate -- caseload composition only.