Michael J. Frank

How Judge Frank rules, drawn from 9 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Position
magistrate
Commissioned
2018-09-17
Signed orders read
9

How Judge Frank decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Procedural preferences

He enforces the in forma pauperis screening rules strictly: a prisoner who does not completely and honestly disclose his prior litigation history risks dismissal of the whole case as malicious under 28 U.S.C. 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). Candor on the complaint form matters.

“this case be dismissed as malicious, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1), for Easley's abuse of the judicial process in failing to completely and honestly disclose”

His dispositive rulings are reports and recommendations subject to the district judge's review; he reminds parties that objections must be filed within fourteen days and that failing to file specific objections waives the right to challenge unobjected-to findings on appeal.

“A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Goshay v. Dixon
4:22-cv-00054
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that: 1. Respondent's motion to dismiss, Doc. 11, be GRANTED. 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1 ... be DISMISSED with prejudice as time-barred. 3. The District Court DENY a certificate of appealability.”

Cruz v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
3:20-cv-05271
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the petition for writ of habeas corpus ... challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence in State of Florida v. Willie V. Cruz, Santa Rosa County Circuit Court Case No. 2015-CF-447, be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time barred. 3. The District Court DENY a certificate of appealability.”

Gainey v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
3:21-cv-00736
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“1. Respondent's motion to dismiss, Doc. 8, be GRANTED. 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) ... be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time-barred.”

Berlin v. Inch
4:20-cv-00354
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“1. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) be GRANTED. 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) ... be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time barred. 3. The District Court DENY a certificate of appealability.”

Lee v. Dixon
1:22-cv-00114
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The State's motion to dismiss should be denied, because Lee's habeas petition is timely. ... 1. Respondent's motion to dismiss, Doc. 26, be DENIED. 2. This case be returned to the undersigned for further proceedings.”

Schooley v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (a/k/a Sand Canyon Corp.)
5:21-cv-00219
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“1. GRANT SCC's motion to dismiss, Doc. 28, and DISMISS with prejudice Schooley's claims against SCC. 2. DENY Schooley's conditional request to file a fourth amended complaint.”

Easley v. Inch
5:18-cv-00148

An 11-page report and recommendation screening a pro se prisoner civil-rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). Judge Frank recommended sua sponte dismissal as malicious for the plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process in failing to honestly disclose his prior litigation history, and also recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction.

Utterback v. Morris
5:23-cv-00279 · 2024-07-24
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“GRANT Defendant Craig B. Morris’s ‘Motion to Dismiss,’ Doc. 16;”

Collins v. KOS 11838 LLC
5:25-cv-00195-MW-MJF · 2026-06-03
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Court: 1. GRANT Plaintiff’s ‘Motion for Default Final Judgment and Attorney’s Fees and Cost,’ Doc. 28; and 2. ENTER judgment against Defendants in the amount of $37,515.50—$25,611.50 in damages, $10,889.00 in attorney’s fees, and $1,015.00 in costs.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

  • Judge Frank's directly assigned and consent docket includes magistrate criminal-duty matters, Social Security disability appeals, ADA public-accommodation suits, insurance and Medicaid disputes, and occasional copyright cases.
  • Much of his additional work consists of reports and recommendations in referred state-habeas and prisoner civil-rights matters, which are not reflected in the assigned-case mix.

Draft for Judge Frank with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Frank, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Frank's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace