Hope Thai Cannon
How Judge Cannon rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cannon
Hope Thai Cannon joined the Northern District of Florida as a U.S. magistrate judge in March 2019 and sits in Pensacola. She earned her law degree from the University of Alabama in 1999 and practiced law privately before taking the bench.
Judge Cannon's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Cannon, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Preferences ↗
- Sample Order Setting Settlement Conference ↗
- Sample Case Management and Scheduling Order in a Pro Se 1983 Case ↗
- Sample Initial Scheduling Order in a Pro Se civil case ↗
- Sample Order Setting Trial in a Misdemeanor Case ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
To set a referred hearing before Judge Cannon, select at least three times and email chambers or contact a law clerk.
“the parties should select at least three dates and times and email those to Chambers or contact one of the law clerks.”
Motions
Meet and confer before motions before Judge Cannon; failure usually leads to denial.
“Parties are expected to comply with their meet and confer obligations and in most circumstances a failure to do so will result in a denial of the pertinent motion.”
Discovery
If a deposition dispute prevents efficient continuation, the parties may call chambers for a telephone conference.
“the parties may call chambers to request a telephone conference.”
Conferences
Remote appearances before Judge Cannon require prior approval unless the hearing notice says otherwise.
“telephonic or remote appearances are allowed only with prior approval from Judge Cannon.”
Conferences
After a hearing notice, request a new date by motion to continue.
“All requests for a new hearing date after a notice of hearing has been posted must be made through a motion to continue.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Cannon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In excessive-force cases, she distinguished between competing sworn accounts and objective video. Without video that conclusively resolved the dispute, she treated credibility as a jury question; when body-camera footage contradicted the plaintiff's account, she recommended summary judgment and qualified immunity.
“the two version of events presented by Defendants and Plaintiff present 'a classic swearing match, which is the stuff of which jury trials are made.' ... At the summary judgment stage, this Court cannot make credibility determinations”
In Wingate v. Richards, she recommended summary judgment and qualified immunity for deputies because body-camera footage contradicted the plaintiff's search-and-seizure account and showed no constitutional violation.
“Based on the uncontroverted evidence set forth in the body camera footage, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that Defendants violated a constitutional right. As such, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.”
In Jones v. Cash, she recommended denying Officer Yost summary judgment on qualified immunity because a jury could find excessive force and a failure to intervene on the disputed facts.
“because a reasonable jury could find Defendant Yost failed to intervene in the alleged use of excessive force, Defendant Yost is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.”
In Parker v. Esper, she construed a pro se federal employee's disability complaint under the Rehabilitation Act despite ADA Title I immunity, then recommended summary judgment because the agency was not his joint employer.
“The fact that DeCA ... is immune from liability under Title I of the ADA, however, does not necessarily mean that summary judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant. This is so because the United States is not immune under the Rehabilitation Act, which provides the same relief as the ADA.”
In a prisoner excessive-force case, Cannon found a factual dispute about the plaintiff’s injuries and recommended denying defense summary judgment on compensatory and punitive damages.
“the undersigned finds that a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff suffered a more than de minimis physical injury from Defendants' conduct.”
In United States v. Wilkerson, she denied the government's pretrial-detention motion and ordered release under conditions after applying the statutory burdens to the evidence presented.
“The Government has the burden of establishing a defendant is a risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence or is a risk of danger by clear and convincing evidence.”
Procedural preferences
In Parker v. Esper, Cannon deemed the defendant’s requests for admission admitted for the summary judgment motion after the pro se plaintiff failed to answer them, even after a court order. She recommended judgment for the defendant on the separate ground that the record did not show a joint employment relationship, regardless of those admissions.
“Thus, for purposes of this motion, the facts set forth in the requests are deemed admitted.”
In Garcia v. Secretary, FDOC, she recommended dismissing a prisoner's requested injunctive relief as moot because he had transferred away from the facility whose conditions he challenged.
“the undersigned agrees with the Secretary that Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are moot. Plaintiff's requested injunctive relief concerns conditions in a prison at which he is no longer incarcerated.”
In Lewis v. Barrons Property Managers, she recommended dismissal of the Fair Housing Act claims because the complaint did not link adverse housing conduct to a protected characteristic or protected activity.
“There are simply no facts linking any adverse conduct to Plaintiff’s complaints; to the contrary, the facts show Plaintiff (1) chose not to sign a lease with EGR and (2) missed the deadline for renewing his lease with Barrons.”
In Bilal v. Benoit, she recommended dismissal of federal claims with prejudice because they were barred by Heck, time limits, or lack of a legal basis, leaving any state-law issues to the state forum.
“all of Plaintiff’s federal claims lack merit, as they are either Heck-barred, time-barred, or lack a legal basis.”
When a defendant challenged a prisoner’s sworn prior-litigation disclosure, she checked the underlying state filings and recommended dismissal without prejudice after finding four omitted proceedings.
“The Court has the inherent power to dismiss an action for a plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the Court, this Court’s local rules, or for abusing the judicial process.”
In discovery, she treats answers made “subject to” or “without waiving” blanket objections as ineffective to preserve those objections. Her order required clear amended answers and a privilege log, while rejecting requests without a shown connection to the claims.
“the practice of lodging objections and nonetheless responding is disfavored and, generally, results in a waiver of the objections.”
Cautions
Federal habeas is not used to short-circuit an ongoing state prosecution when the state forum can address the constitutional issues and no extraordinary bad faith or harassment is shown.
“Habeas-corpus proceedings under section 2241 are not intended to serve ‘as a substitute for the functions of the trial court.’”
In a 2022 prisoner civil-rights screening, Cannon recommended dismissal without prejudice as malicious after finding that the plaintiff failed to disclose prior lawsuits on the complaint form.
“An appropriate sanction for Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process in not providing the Court with true factual statements or responses is to dismiss this case without prejudice.”
In a 2020 civil-rights case, Cannon denied a requested stay after explaining that written discovery could proceed during social distancing and the plaintiff had ignored earlier orders to respond.
“As the undersigned has directed Plaintiff on numerous occasions, he filed this action over a year ago and he must prosecute it. His failure to do so is prejudicial to the Defendant and his multiple filings directed at the same issue is bordering on an abuse of the judicial process.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim for compensatory and punitive damages for violating his Eighth Amendment rights. ... Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement be GRANTED as to Plaintiff's failure to intervene/protect claim against all Defendants, EXCEPT Marinin and Paul. ... Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims for retaliation (First Amendment claim), violation of his rights to equal protection (Fourteenth Amendment claim), and conspiracy to obstruct justice.”
“Defendant Yost's motion for summary judgment, ECF Doc. 59, be DENIED.”
“Defendants Walker, Brown, and Ely's motion for summary judgment, ECF Doc. 69, be DENIED.”
“Defendant Dixon's Motion to Dismiss (ECF Doc. 49) be GRANTED.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF Doc. 17) be GRANTED and judgment be entered in favor of Defendants.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Doc. 52) be GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's motion to request a stay of time (ECF Doc. 57) is DENIED.”
“the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed as moot and for failure to prosecute.”
Sua sponte recommendation resolving no party motion. After the court and U.S. Marshals made repeated, documented attempts to serve an unlocatable correctional-officer defendant ('C. Smith' / 'Cynthia Smith'), Cannon recommended dismissing her under Rule 4(m): 'That Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Smith be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).' The dismissal was without prejudice. She affords an in-forma-pauperis prisoner the Richardson v. Johnson 'good cause' extension while reasonable Marshals' efforts continue, but will dismiss once those efforts are exhausted and the plaintiff cannot supply a service address.
Sua sponte recommendation on screening, resolving no party motion. A pro se employment-discrimination complaint was dismissed for failure to prosecute: plaintiff did not submit summonses for service within the court's deadline and did not respond to a show-cause order. The recommendation was that 'This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order' under Rule 41(b). The dismissal was without prejudice.
Sua sponte 28 U.S.C. 1915A / 1915(e) screening recommendation, resolving no party motion. A pre-trial detainee's pro se 1983 complaint was dismissed because he checked 'NO' under penalty of perjury when asked about prior suits but had filed four undisclosed federal actions: 'This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as malicious for Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process.' The dismissal was without prejudice. Like the related Gainesville magistrate practice, she enforces prisoner litigation-history disclosure strictly. (His separate petition for a temporary restraining order was terminated with the case.)
Section 1915(e)(2)/1915A screening R&R resolving no party motion. Cannon recommended dismissing the pro se prisoner's Section 1983 complaint without prejudice as malicious for abuse of the judicial process: the plaintiff swore under penalty of perjury that he had no prior dismissed cases, but the court's independent docket investigation found at least one prior case dismissed for failure to state a claim plus two dismissed habeas petitions he failed to disclose; he also never paid the fee or moved to proceed in forma pauperis and filed a second amended complaint without leave. Quote: 'this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as malicious for Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process and for Plaintiff's failure to follow the Court's orders.' She independently verifies a pro se prisoner's litigation history and recommends a malicious dismissal for an omission on the disclosure form. Prejudice: without prejudice.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 217.0 days (N = 14).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 22 days (N = 3).
- Judge Cannon's directly assigned work across the district is dominated by Social Security disability appeals and magistrate criminal-duty matters, including complaints and warrant proceedings.
- Her consent civil cases include product-liability, contract, consumer, and property-damage disputes.
- A substantial additional part of her work consists of reports and recommendations in referred prisoner civil-rights, habeas, and other self-represented matters, which are not reflected in the assigned-case mix.
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 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, not for Judge Cannon: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 148,428 | 47.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 30 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 148,385 | 47.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 4 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 148,428 | 47.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 140,479 | 43.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 36,307 | 27.8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 57,845 | 21.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 14,972 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,038 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,148 | 7.5 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Cannon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cannon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cannon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace