Gordon Miles Davis
Judge Davis no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Davis 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 he enforces the treating-physician rule strictly and even-handedly. He reverses where the ALJ overlooks a treating physician's records that are in fact in the file and fails to weigh the opinion under the six regulatory factors -- an error he will not excuse as harmless even when other evidence might support the denial.
“By discounting Dr. Matson's opinion because they were not supported by his own records (because there were allegedly no such records) the ALJ committed error, and the undersigned is not willing to accept this error as harmless.”
But the same rule cuts both ways: he affirms when the ALJ clearly articulates good cause for discounting a treating physician whose opinion rests on the claimant's subjective complaints and is contradicted by the objective testing and the other examiners, and properly applies the Eleventh Circuit's three-part pain standard. A credibility call within the ALJ's 'realm of judging' on substantial evidence will stand.
“It was clearly within his “realm of judging” to make a credibility determination from these facts, and he did so ... He did not improperly reject the opinion of Dr. Hakima, and he did not improperly reject Ms. Pettaway's subjective complaints of pain.”
Procedural preferences
For petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he addressed administrative exhaustion before the merits and treated the Bureau of Prisons' four-level grievance process as jurisdictional under then-controlling circuit law. A prediction that the agency would deny relief did not excuse exhaustion as futile.
“That the petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 (doc. 1) be denied without prejudice as this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of petitioner's claim due to his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit.”
He polices the boundary of habeas custody: an immigration detainer lodged with the prison, standing alone, does not place a prisoner 'in custody' of DHS/ICE for 28 U.S.C. 2241 purposes, so a petition to compel a removal hearing or lift the detainer is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
“Because petitioner is not “in custody” of the DHS or ICE, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to address his claims.”
Cautions
On 1915(e) screening of pro se prisoner filings he enforces the line between civil-rights and habeas relief: a 1983 or Bivens complaint that really attacks the validity of a plea or conviction and seeks release is not cognizable as a civil-rights action and will be dismissed, with 28 U.S.C. 2255 identified as the proper vehicle.
“Plaintiff's Bivens claims challenge the validity of his plea (what is now a conviction), and seek release from confinement. Such claims are in the nature of habeas corpus and are not cognizable in a civil rights action.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“That the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED without prejudice due to petitioner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit.”
“Because petitioner is not “in custody” of the DHS or ICE, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to address his claims. ... it respectfully RECOMMENDED: 1. That the petition for writ of habeas corpus, (doc. 1), as supplemented (doc. 22) be DISMISSED.”
“That the petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 (doc. 1) be denied without prejudice as this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of petitioner's claim due to his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit.”
“Respondent's motion for leave to file a response (doc. 14) is GRANTED.”
“it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED, that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant, and that the clerk be directed to close the file.”
“Plaintiff's Bivens claims challenge the validity of his plea (what is now a conviction), and seek release from confinement. Such claims are in the nature of habeas corpus and are not cognizable in a civil rights action. ... That this cause be DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the clerk be directed to close the file.”
“it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration consistent with this report and recommendation, and that the clerk be directed to close the file.”
“That plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss (doc. 43) be granted and this case be dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its own attorney's fees, if any, and costs.”
“That defendant's renewed motion to dismiss his § 2255 motion (doc. 191) be granted and that his motion for extension of time (doc. 192) be denied as moot.”
“That plaintiff Peters' notice of voluntary dismissal (doc. 9) be granted, that this case be dismissed without prejudice, and the clerk be directed to close the file.”
R&R: sua sponte review of a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and IFP motion captioned for a Florida state circuit court (Second Judicial Circuit, Santa Rosa County), evidently misfiled in federal court by the plaintiff or someone on his behalf. Recommended dismissal without prejudice so plaintiff could refile in the intended state forum. This court-initiated dismissal had no party movant. Quote: That this cause be dismissed without prejudice so that plaintiff may file his petition in the intended forum.
R&R: sua sponte dismissal recommendation after plaintiff, granted IFP status and assessed a partial filing fee, failed to pay it or respond to two court orders (one returned undeliverable) and had another of his cases dismissed on the same ground. Recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. This court-initiated dismissal had no party movant. Quote: That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the court.
“That plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (doc. 22) be GRANTED. That judgment be entered for the plaintiff jointly and severally against defendants Whiteman Masonry, Inc. and Charles J. Whiteman a/k/a Charles Whiteman a/k/a Chuck Whiteman in the amount of $82,294.39, plus accrued interest at 18% per annum through March 15, 2007 of $28,724.75, plus a per diem of $40.58 thereafter through the date that judgment is entered.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
His assigned docket of record is dominated by Social Security disability appeals (DIWC/DIWW and SSID, e.g. the Apfel / Barnhart / Astrue / Colvin cases) decided by consent, alongside prisoner prison-condition / civil-rights cases (42 U.S.C. 1983) and habeas, plus a tail of diversity foreclosure, FLSA, environmental, and student-loan-recovery matters. As a Pensacola/Panama City magistrate he also carries criminal-duty work -- petty-offense (-po), misdemeanor/initial (-mj), and miscellaneous (-mc) dockets such as a foreign legal-assistance request -- which are short-duration intake matters, not civil dispositions. Filed-to-terminated durations on the 26-case civil sample (filed 1996-2013) ran 148-1061 days (median 263); the Social Security appeals cluster in the ~150-380 day range while the long tail is the contested prisoner and miscellaneous cases (Otero 965 days; Peoples foreclosure 1061 days).
A historical record
Judge Davis 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.