Julie S. Sneed
How Judge Sneed decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security appeals she is deferential to the ALJ: she will affirm where the decision is supported by substantial evidence and applies the correct legal standards, and she will not reweigh the record. Under the post-2017 regulations the treating-physician rule is gone; medical opinions are judged on supportability and consistency, and an ALJ may discount even a long-time treating source whose extreme limitations are unsupported by that source's own normal exam findings.
“While the court reviews the Commissioner's decision with deference to the factual findings, no such deference is given to the legal conclusions. ... the court may not decide the facts anew, re-weigh the evidence, or substitute its own judgment for that of the ALJ, even if it finds that the evidence preponderates against the ALJ's decision.”
On removal she puts the burden on the removing party and resolves doubt against federal jurisdiction; conclusory amount-in-controversy or federal-question assertions in a notice of removal will not survive a motion to remand.
“All doubts must be resolved in favor of remand.”
For First Step Act time-credit claims, she treats a documented final removal order as disqualifying even when the prisoner disputes being subject to one.
“The final order of removal renders Petitioner ineligible to apply FSA credits to his sentence.”
Procedural preferences
Motions to stay are disfavored and require a good-cause showing; absent one she will deny a stay and keep the case on its discovery track.
“Courts in this circuit have noted that motions to stay are not favored because delays 'can create case management problems which impede the Court's responsibility to expedite discovery' ... no good cause has been shown warranting a stay of this case.”
Even when granting extraordinary ex parte relief she tailors it narrowly to the governing statute and declines the most intrusive remedy absent the specific statutory showing -- here issuing an ICARA travel-restraint/document-surrender TRO but refusing a warrant to physically seize the child without satisfying Fla. Stat. 61.534(2).
“Petitioner's conclusory assertions are not sufficient to warrant the arrest of the Child and removal of the Child from Respondent's custody.”
Cautions
She enforces the M.D. Fla. Local Rules strictly, including against pro se and out-of-division litigants: she denied a preliminary-injunction request for failure to comply with Local Rule 6.02 and struck a notice of unavailability as prohibited by the Local Rules. Comply with the Local Rules' format and lead-counsel/CM requirements.
“Plaintiff's request for Preliminary Injunction is denied for failure to comply with the provisions of Middle District of Florida Local Rule 6.02.”
A Section 2241 petition attacking the validity of a federal sentence will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless the petitioner establishes that the Section 2255 saving clause applies.
“Because Petitioner fails to demonstrate the applicability of the saving clause, this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate his § 2241 petition on the merits.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Petitioner's Verified Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED. ... This case is REMANDED to the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange and Osceola Counties, Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c).”
“ENDORSED ORDER denying 14 Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings. ... no good cause has been shown warranting a stay of this case.”
“Any pending motions are DENIED as moot and the Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all deadlines and close this case.”
“As the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision was based on substantial evidence and employed proper legal standards, the decision is affirmed.”
“ORDER granting 14 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand. The Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further administrative proceedings.”
“ORDER granting 17 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand. The Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further administrative proceedings.”
“The final order of removal renders Petitioner ineligible to apply FSA credits to his sentence. ... The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“The final order of removal renders Petitioner ineligible to apply FSA credits to his sentence. ... The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“Because Petitioner fails to demonstrate the applicability of the saving clause, this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate his § 2241 petition on the merits. ... the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 3) is DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 173.5 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 187.5 days (N = 32).
During Sneed's service as a magistrate judge from 2015 through 2024, her sampled cases were dominated by consent Social Security appeals, along with FLSA, employment-discrimination, and diversity insurance and contract matters. Since becoming a district judge in 2024, she has handled a general civil and criminal docket that includes civil-rights cases, habeas petitions, Hague Convention matters, consumer-credit disputes, diversity actions, immigration mandamus cases, and trademark litigation.
Put Judge Sneed's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Sneed actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Sneed's own signed orders and cites them.