Kenneth Anthony Marra
Judge Marra no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Marra decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion he refuses to let a defendant smuggle in the merits: he denied dismissal of a Title VII race-discrimination complaint because the motion demanded a prima facie evidentiary showing, which is a summary-judgment standard rather than a pleading requirement. Plead the elements; do not over-argue the merits at the dismissal stage.
He construes mislabeled motions by their substance -- treating a 'forum non conveniens' motion as a Section 1404(a) transfer motion, since the doctrine reaches only a foreign alternative forum -- and weighs a plaintiff's bargained-for contractual choice of forum heavily against transfer.
Cautions
Published written orders over-represent contested dispositive motions, so the counts are illustrative rather than a base-rate tendency. Marra's best-known matters -- the Jeffrey Epstein Crime Victims' Rights Act litigation and the post-Sackett Clean Water Act 'waters of the United States' ruling in United States v. Sharfi -- provide important context for the sampled motion outcomes.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court finds that the granting of injunctive relief is not warranted in this case.”
“Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion to Strike Response to Rule 25 Notice (DE 477) is denied.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 150) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 154) is GRANTED.”
“the remaining motions be denied as moot ... Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Michael Wylie (DE 155)”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Defendants' Expert Michael Dennis (DE 161) ... denied as moot”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (DE 10) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend consistent with this Order.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 8) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (DE 14) is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint (DE 10) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff is given leave to amend once.”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike (DE 19), which is unopposed (DE 22), is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens, construed as a motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Steven G. Smith's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendant Smith.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [DE 2] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss the action is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion to stay the action pending resolution of the parallel case is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for More Definite Statement is GRANTED. Plaintiff is instructed to file an Amended Complaint on all counts, consistent with the Court's rulings at the hearing.”
“Defendant's Motion to Strike is TERMINATED, as it was orally withdrawn by defense counsel at the hearing.”
A sua sponte screening dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B): the court found the pro se plaintiff's malicious-prosecution claim against the state attorney barred by prosecutorial immunity and defensive collateral estoppel and dismissed for failure to state a claim. The order rules on no party motion; pending motions were denied as moot and the case closed.
“it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (DE 10) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Offer of Judgment and For Sanctions [DE 9] is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to strike Defendants' Offer of Judgment [DE 8] from the court file. The Court reserves ruling on the request for sanctions.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 41.5 days (N = 4).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 157 days (N = 1).
The reviewed 2018-2020 matters show a late-career docket weighted toward criminal cases and quickly resolved disability-access suits. His major civil matters, including the Epstein crime-victims litigation and the Sharfi water-jurisdiction case, lasted much longer. This provides descriptive context rather than a caseload-wide rate.
A historical record
Judge Marra 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.