James E. Graham
Judge Graham no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Graham decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In prisoner excessive-force suits, Graham consistently let claims proceed past screening or summary judgment whenever the plaintiff's and defendants' sworn accounts of an incident genuinely conflicted, rather than resolving credibility disputes himself.
“There exists a genuine dispute as to whether Woods needed to use any force against Plaintiff... this factual dispute is sufficient to deny Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue. Likewise, this factual dispute is sufficient to deny Defendants' Motion on this issue as well.”
He dismissed supervisory-liability claims quickly and predictably when a prisoner-plaintiff sued a warden or commissioner based only on their position, without personal involvement or a documented pattern of abuse -- the single most common basis for a partial dismissal in his caseload.
“In section 1983 actions, liability must be based on something more than a theory of respondeat superior... Plaintiff has failed to make this basic showing, his claims against Defendant Bennett should be dismissed.”
He reliably dismissed prisoners' claims for money damages against officials in their official capacity on Eleventh Amendment grounds, even while letting the same claims proceed against the same individuals in their personal capacity.
“Because the state of Georgia would be the real party in interest in a suit against Movants in their official capacities, the Eleventh Amendment immunizes them from suit in their official capacities for monetary damages... Plaintiff may proceed with his claims against Movants only in their individual capacities.”
Procedural preferences
He held pro se prisoner-litigants to the district's local discovery rules even while construing their pleadings liberally, denying discovery motions that did not follow the required format rather than excusing the defect.
“L.R. 26.5 provides that Motions to Compel Discovery shall quote verbatim each interrogatory and any objection thereto. Plft has not complied with this requirement; therefore, the court has insufficient information to assess the validity of Plft's motion.”
When a pro se complaint raised several unrelated claims, he flagged the problem and asked the plaintiff to choose which to pursue, rather than screening the whole tangle himself.
“The undersigned informed Plaintiff that the claims he set forth in his Complaint appeared to be unrelated and directed Plaintiff to advise the Court as to which related claims he wished to pursue.”
Cautions
A recommendation from Graham was not always adopted wholesale -- in at least one sampled case the reviewing district judge sustained the recommendation as to one defendant but revived a claim against another, so an unopposed R&R still carries some chance of partial reversal on de novo review.
“ORDER granting in part and denying in part 6 Report and Recommendations. Evans' objection is SUSTAINED in part, and OVERRULED in part. Evans' claims against Newsome is not obviously frivolous, but Evans' claims against Sheriff Bennett is DISMISSED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the foregoing, it is my RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Dodson, S. Jackson, and E. Smith be DISMISSED.”
“Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Physical Examination by Independent Physician. He seeks an Order for a physical examination by physicians not employed by the Georgia Department of Corrections or the State of Georgia. Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.”
“Upon review of these filings, it appears they are requests for discovery. Discovery is not filed with the Court, but rather more appropriately directed to counsel for the Defendants... To the extent these filings are motions, they are dismissed.”
“it is my RECOMMENDATION that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants H. Smith, F. Brown, Dupree, J. Brown, Mobley, Dasher, Johnson, Waynick, Simmons, and Madison (Doc. No. 44) be GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Plaintiffs claims for monetary damages against said Defendants in their official capacities should be dismissed. Plaintiffs claims against said Defendants in their individual capacities should remain pending.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment should be also be DENIED.”
“REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: dismissing claims against defts Cooper, Robbins, Highsmith, Crosby, Humphrey, Hodges and Batten in 1 Complaint filed by James Henry Leroy Martin.”
“ORDER denying 24 Motion for Reconsideration.”
“ORDER denying 29 Motion for an Order to Compel. L.R. 26.5 provides that Motions to Compel Discovery shall quote verbatim each interrogatory and any objection thereto. Plft has not complied with this requirement; therefore, the court has insufficient information to assess the validity of Plft's motion.”
“ORDER denying 36 Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel.”
“ORDER denying 43 Motion for Subpoena to Produce Evidence.”
“Based on the foregoing, it is my RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED, without prejudice, due to his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his complaint.”
“Based on the foregoing, it is my recommendation that all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Rebecca Lowman, Vickie Chesser, Ms. Ferra, Dr. Ferrell, Ryan Hodges, and Carl Humphrey be DISMISSED. Additionally, Plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendant Randall Holden should also be DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Graham's directly-assigned civil docket in the Brunswick, Waycross, and Statesboro divisions was dominated by pro se prisoner civil-rights suits against Georgia state prison and county jail officials (excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and conditions of confinement), on which he issued reports and recommendations for the presiding district judge's review; a smaller number of matters, including at least one full civil case, proceeded on the parties' consent to his direct jurisdiction through final judgment.
A historical record
Judge Graham 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.