Hope Thai Cannon
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”
Counterpoint to the swearing-match rule: dispositive video controls. Where bodycam footage blatantly contradicts the plaintiff's account of a search/seizure, she grants qualified immunity and summary judgment because no constitutional violation is shown.
“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.”
On qualified immunity at summary judgment in excessive-force/failure-to-intervene claims, she treats the QI question as folding into the same fact dispute: if a reasonable jury could find excessive force or a failure to intervene, QI does not shield the officer at the SJ stage. A defendant cannot win QI merely by asserting it where the force itself is genuinely disputed.
“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.”
Disability-discrimination framing matters: the United States/its agencies are immune under ADA Title I, but she will liberally construe a pro se complaint to assert the Rehabilitation Act (the exclusive federal-employee disability remedy) rather than dismiss outright -- then decide the merits (here, joint-employer control) on the record.
“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.”
On PLRA damages she applies 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e) but reads 'more than de minimis injury' generously at summary judgment: a concussion, migraines, and multiple contusions create a fact question that defeats a defense MSJ aimed at capping a prisoner to nominal damages.
“the undersigned finds that a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff suffered a more than de minimis physical injury from Defendants' conduct.”
At a detention hearing she requires the government to meet the statutory burden with the evidence presented rather than treating a grave charge or potential sentence as dispositive. Strong community ties and manageable risks can support release under stringent conditions.
“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
Failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions is treated as a binding concession under Rule 36(a): the facts are deemed admitted and can carry a summary judgment. Answer RFAs on time -- silence becomes the record.
“Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant's request for admissions within the allotted time frame. In fact, the Plaintiff failed to respond even after this Court specifically ordered him to do so. ... Thus, for purposes of this motion, the facts set forth in the requests are deemed admitted.”
Prisoner claims for injunctive relief are mooted by a transfer: once the inmate leaves the institution where the challenged conditions exist, she dismisses the injunctive claims as moot (the narrow capable-of-repetition exception rarely applies). Conditions-of-confinement injunctive relief must target the facility where the plaintiff is actually held.
“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 Fair Housing Act pleading, she requires a factual link between a protected characteristic or activity and the challenged housing decision. Repair, parking, rent, and lease disputes do not become discrimination or retaliation claims through conclusory comparisons alone.
“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.”
For sprawling claims that revisit old criminal or civil-commitment proceedings, she separates threshold federal bars claim by claim and returns any remaining state-law issues to state court.
“all of Plaintiff’s federal claims lack merit, as they are either Heck-barred, time-barred, or lack a legal basis.”
Cautions
Strict on prisoner candor, and this is her single most recurring screening disposition: failing to disclose prior lawsuits on the civil-rights complaint form (signed under penalty of perjury) is sanctioned by dismissal as 'malicious' for abuse of the judicial process under 28 U.S.C. 1915A/1915(e), and pro se status is no excuse. She independently investigates the docket to verify a litigant's prior filings, and the same malicious-nondisclosure dismissal recurs across multiple screened cases (Harrison, Garcia v. Inch, Jenkins, Raker). Disclose all prior litigation truthfully.
“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.”
Dilatory or duplicative pro se tactics are not indulged: repeated motions aimed at the same issue, and refusing to participate in written discovery, draw firm management and admonitions -- she had already accommodated genuine concerns (deferring depositions during COVID) before denying a further stay.
“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).
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.
Put Judge Cannon's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Cannon actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Cannon's own signed orders and cites them.