Maurice Mitchell Paul
Judge Paul no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Paul decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On prisoner litigation he applies the PLRA exhaustion requirement strictly and treats it as mandatory and non-discretionary: a grievance process left incomplete is fatal, and the excuse that officials 'thwarted' an appeal does not excuse non-exhaustion -- the inmate must instead appeal noting the lack of response. Decision-grade for plaintiff's counsel: complete every grievance step correctly and before filing suit.
“Under the cases cited by the Magistrate Judge, such exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory, and the undersigned does not have discretion to waive this requirement.”
On habeas appeals he holds petitioners to the AEDPA certificate-of-appealability standard: a COA issues only on a 'substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,' meaning the issues must be debatable among jurists of reason. He denies a COA where the claims are without merit and not reasonably debatable.
“a petitioner who has been denied relief in a district court 'must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.' ... Petitioner has not demonstrated that the issues raised therein are debatable among jurists of reason.”
Procedural preferences
He reviews a magistrate judge's Report & Recommendation de novo on the points a party objects to, and will adopt and apply it even against the objecting party -- objecting does not by itself displace a sound recommendation. Where no objections are filed, he adopts the R&R on the reasoning stated.
“Plaintiff has filed objections at Doc. 93. I have made a de novo review based on those objections. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.”
Cautions
He will dismiss a case (without prejudice) for failure to follow the court's orders -- a litigant who is repeatedly directed to cure a pleading, for example to file an amended complaint, and does not, risks involuntary dismissal. Comply promptly with court directions and do not appeal before a final order is entered.
“the Court agrees that plaintiff failed to follow an order of the Court by not filing an amended complaint despite being told to do so several times. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and this case dismissed without prejudice for failure to follow an order of the Court.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 74) is GRANTED as Plaintiff has not established a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant on all claims.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 55, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 34, is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to note on the docket that this cause was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)”
“The motions to dismiss at docs. 36, 48, 52, and 53 are granted, and this action is DISMISSED with regard to the defendants who brought such motions.”
“Doc. 10, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, is DENIED.”
“Doc. 7, Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The motion to dismiss at Doc. 11 is granted and the petition at Doc. 1 is dismissed with prejudice as untimely. A certificate of appealability is denied.”
“A certificate of appealability is denied.”
“Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 104) is DENIED.”
“the Report and Recommendation is adopted and this case dismissed without prejudice for failure to follow an order of the Court.”
“The Motion to Dismiss and Discharge, Doc. 19, is GRANTED. This cause is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The motion to dismiss at Doc. 3 is mooted by the Amended Complaint and should be terminated by the Clerk.”
“ORDERED and ADJUDGED the claims against Dunlop Tire Corporation and Defendant Ford Motor Company are dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear its own costs, expenses and attorney's fees.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 112, is GRANTED, and this cause DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2). ... shall constitute a “strike” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g).”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 29, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 38, is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 205.5 days (N = 20).
His docket is bimodal by era. The active and early-senior years (1976-2007 sampled) carried a substantive civil mix -- employment civil rights, securities, contract and negotiable instruments, tax, Social Security disability appeals, and prisoner/habeas matters. The late-senior years (his 2016 docket sampled) are overwhelmingly pro se prisoner cases: 42:1983 prison-condition suits and 28:2254/2255/2241 habeas petitions, most terminated within days to weeks on screening or recommendation. This skew is why the written-order merits outcomes lean defendant/respondent-favorable.
A historical record
Judge Paul 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.