Victor A. Bolden

How Judge Bolden rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
2014-11-21
Education
Columbia University (A.B., 1986); Harvard Law School (J.D., 1989)
Signed orders read
16

How Judge Bolden decides

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

What persuades

Treats PLRA administrative exhaustion as a fact question for trial where the availability of the grievance remedy is genuinely disputed, declining to grant summary judgment on exhaustion.

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”

Procedural preferences

Applies the liberal Rule 15(a) amendment standard, granting leave to amend absent a showing of prejudice, bad faith, or futility by the opposing party.

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint and to amend the case caption.”

Cautions

Dismisses meritless pro se collateral attacks on state family-court proceedings with prejudice on judicial-immunity and Rooker-Feldman grounds, denying leave to amend where amendment would be futile.

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED with prejudice.”

Signed rulings

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

Cleary v. Grossman
3:23-cv-00349-VAB · 2024-03-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED with prejudice.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted
Bogle v. Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services
3:23-cv-00323-VAB · 2025-06-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. The hostile work environment claim is dismissed, but the Title VII disparate impact claim against DMHAS, and the Section 1983 claim against Ms. Hyatt will proceed to trial.”

Wine v. Black
3:18-cv-00704-VAB · 2023-02-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”

Milford Christian Church v. Russell-Tucker
3:23-cv-00304-VAB · 2024-06-14
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint and to amend the case caption.”

Jordan v. Department of Correction
3:23-cv-00855-VAB · 2024-10-25
Motions to strike (defendant) Granted in part

“The Defendants' motion to strike [ECF No. 33] is GRANTED as to the request to strike all allegations relating to claims and defendants dismissed on initial review and DENIED as to the request for more definite statement.”

Lu v. Diamond Nail & Spa CT Inc.
3:21-cv-01073-VAB · 2024-03-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment DENIED.”

Jordan v. Wright
3:24-cv-01166-VAB · 2026-05-08
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”

Jordan v. Gallagher
3:24-cv-01694-VAB · 2025-12-19
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“motion to dismiss, ECF No. 27, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”

Laghari v. State of Connecticut Department of Correction
3:25-cv-01373-VAB · 2026-06-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“motion to dismiss, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”

Baltas v. Soto
3:23-cv-00930-VAB · 2026-02-19
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“second motion for summary judgment is GRANTED”

Jordan v. Department of Corrections
3:24-cv-00227-VAB · 2026-05-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“motion for summary judgment is DENIED”

Wolterstorff v. Quiros
3:23-cv-01111-VAB · 2026-05-08
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the claims against Nurses Scott and Stork must be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v)”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“summary judgment will enter in favor of Nurses Ostheimer and Jackson”

Draft for Judge Bolden with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bolden, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Bolden's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace