Charles S. Haight Jr.
How Judge Haight rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Haight no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Haight
Charles Sherman Haight Jr. received his commission to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 29, 1976. He assumed senior status on September 23, 1995, and later sat by designation in the District of Connecticut. He took inactive status on May 19, 2025.
How Judge Haight decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Shao v. Beta Pharma, he denied a Rule 19 joinder challenge to Song Lu’s contract claims, finding that lawsuits by other purchasers were speculative and that defendants had accepted Lu as their representative in the purchase agreement.
“Having accepted Song Lu as a representative to bind all the Sub-Purchasers by the SPA and Sub-Agreement, Defendants cannot now contest Lu's ability to adequately litigate claims based upon that contract.”
In SEC v. Vaccarelli, he granted a consent motion for summary judgment after treating a prior criminal conviction as preclusive of facts underlying the SEC’s civil claims.
“this Court concludes, as many other district courts have, that collateral estoppel leaves no genuine issue of material fact remaining as to the alleged violations of Section 17(a).”
Procedural preferences
In Ashby v. Quiros, Haight denied reconsideration and applied the rule that a movant must identify controlling law or evidence the court overlooked rather than use the motion to advance new arguments.
“reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked; ... a motion for reconsideration or for relief from a final judgment is not an opportunity to advance new arguments.”
In Chien v. Skypeople Fruit Juice, he dismissed the pro se plaintiff’s case for lack of diversity jurisdiction because the limited partnership’s partners defeated complete diversity, without reaching alternative dismissal grounds.
“In the absence of complete diversity, the Court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over this case.”
Cautions
In Ashby v. Quiros, Haight found precedent about the duration of solitary confinement unhelpful to the distinct out-of-cell restraint policy at issue in the qualified-immunity dispute.
“the 'clearly established' element of qualified immunity must be particularized to the facts of the case. ... cases concerning the length of time a prisoner may be held in solitary confinement ... are not instructive in the present situation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
In a pro se prisoner's Section 1983 action alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference over an inadequate mattress, Haight dismissed the complaint sua sponte on Section 1915A screening for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend within 30 days. All defendants were supervisors, and under Tangreti v. Bachmann a supervisor is liable only for individual acts; the plaintiff alleged no defendant's personal involvement. The order also denied three plaintiff motions as moot solely because the complaint was dismissed. Quote: 'The Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint... The Motion... [Doc. 8], Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief [Doc. 10], and Motion to give Court Notice and Request for an Emergency Injunction and/or Restraining Order [Doc. 11] are DENIED AS MOOT due to the dismissal of the Complaint.'
“Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Any further arguments must be addressed to the Court of Appeals.”
“the Court GRANTS the Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment against Leon Vaccarelli, individually and doing business as Lux Financial Services, and LWLVACC, LLC [Doc. 62], which is consented to by Defendants.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Song Lu's Claims in Part for Failure to Join Necessary Parties [Doc. 168] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [Doc. 4] is GRANTED. ... The Clerk shall close the case.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Sur-Reply [Doc. 45] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 19] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion is entirely without merit. It is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion To Dismiss [Doc. #9] is therefore DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. 180] to exclude certain testimony of WMC's expert witnesses is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion [Doc. 184] to exclude sampling is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion [Doc. 185] to exclude the expert testimony of Mason is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendant's Motion [Doc. 186] to exclude expert testimony of Brazier is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion [Doc. 187] to exclude expert testimony of Ross is DENIED.”
“The Plaintiff's motion [Doc. 9] to remand this case to the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford, Connecticut, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [Doc. 7] is GRANTED.”
“All claims asserted by Plaintiff are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, for failure to comply with the Court's March 12, 2021 order and for failure to prosecute this action.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 184 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 140 days (N = 1).
Judge Haight sat by designation in the District of Connecticut after taking senior status in 1995 and became inactive on May 19, 2025. The reviewed Connecticut matters are concentrated in pro se prisoner civil-rights cases, federal habeas petitions, bankruptcy appeals, consumer disputes, and diversity contract cases. This is a caseload description rather than a rate.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 18 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 20 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 21 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 27 | 11 |
| Mar 2023 | 40 | 13 |
| Sep 2022 | 16 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 18 | 17 |
| Sep 2021 | 69 | 15 |
| Mar 2021 | 44 | 11 |
| Sep 2020 | 20 | 9 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Haight no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.