Jeffrey Alker Meyer

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut district Retired 2025 · served 2014–2025 Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 9 signed orders read

Judge Meyer no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Meyer decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Extends solicitude to pro se litigants at summary judgment: a defendant's bare, conclusory affidavit will not carry the motion where the self-represented plaintiff files a competing affidavit that raises genuine issues of material fact, and he denies the motion.

“because Callahan has properly disputed both assertions, I must deny the defendants' motion for summary judgment.”

He will correct his own prior ruling on reconsideration where he identifies a clear legal error, granting summary judgment on one claim he had let stand while reaffirming the denial as to others.

“defendants' motion for reconsideration (Doc. #83) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion, and summary judgment, is GRANTED dismissing plaintiff's Equal Protection claim for retaliation against defendant Callahan, but DENIED as to plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim”

Procedural preferences

Resolves motions to dismiss claim by claim, dismissing unexhausted state-law claims without prejudice (with a short window to cure) while letting the properly pleaded federal claims proceed.

“defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. #22) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's CFEPA claims (Counts Five and Six) are dismissed without prejudice ... This case will otherwise proceed with respect to plaintiff's federal law claims (Counts One through Four).”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Callahan v. Hackling
3:19-cv-01679-JAM · 2024-09-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“because Callahan has properly disputed both assertions, I must deny the defendants' motion for summary judgment. ... the Court DENIES the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. #119).”

Duarte v. Western Connecticut Health Network
3:16-cv-01757-JAM · 2017-07-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. #22) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's CFEPA claims (Counts Five and Six) are dismissed without prejudice ... This case will otherwise proceed with respect to plaintiff's federal law claims (Counts One through Four).”

Moore v. Connecticut Department of Correction
3:13-cv-01160-JAM · 2018-03-22
Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Granted in part

“defendants' motion for reconsideration (Doc. #83) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion, and summary judgment, is GRANTED dismissing plaintiff's Equal Protection claim for retaliation against defendant Callahan, but DENIED as to plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim against the DOC.”

Brown v. Inland Properties LLC
3:17-cv-01157-JAM · 2018-07-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. #25). The Clerk of Court shall close this case.”

Schipke v. State of Connecticut
3:17-cv-02087-JAM · 2018-09-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the motion to dismiss (Doc. #21) is GRANTED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall terminate Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church as a defendant in this action.”

Patushi v. Digital Federal Credit Union
3:23-cv-01202-JAM · 2024-06-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS the defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. #14). ... without prejudice to Patushi's right to seek relief in state court or to file in this Court within 30 days an amended complaint”

Taveras v. XPO Last Mile, Inc.
3:15-cv-01550-JAM · 2016-09-12
Motion for interlocutory appeal certification (defendant) Denied

“Because XPO has not presented a controlling issue of law for interlocutory appeal, its motion for a certificate of appealability (Doc. #95) is DENIED.”

Lundstedt v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
3:13-cv-01423-JAM · 2020-02-10
Post trial motion (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court DENIES plaintiff Lundstedt's post-trial motions (Docs. #364, #365, #367, #376).”

Flynn v. Verizon Wireless
3:22-cv-01065-JAM · 2022-12-12
Discovery stay (court) Granted

“the Court stays all third-party discovery pending its resolution of the pending motions to dismiss.”

A historical record

Judge Meyer 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.