Stephanie Marie Rose

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

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
2012-09-17
ABA rating
Unanimously Well Qualified
Education
B.A., Journalism and Sociology, University of Iowa, 1994 (highest distinction); J.D., University of Iowa College of Law, 1996 (high distinction; Order of the Coif)
Signed orders read
9

How Judge Rose decides

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

What persuades

Rose applies a lenient standard to a self-represented litigant's application to proceed without prepaying fees when indigence and the nature of the action are adequately shown, even if the underlying filing is later dismissed or remanded.

“Although the Court would have welcomed a more detailed affidavit, the Court, aware that Defendant is pro se, finds Defendant has satisfied the requirements of section 1915(a) and the removal filings shall be docketed without prepayment of costs.”

Procedural preferences

When reviewing agency action after an appellate remand, Rose requires the agency to address the factual circumstances identified by the appellate court; an analysis that omits those relevant factors may be set aside and remanded again.

“Here, having failed to consider relevant factors in its restored lands analysis, the NIGC's conclusion based on that analysis is arbitrary and capricious.”

Rose resolves subject-matter jurisdiction before addressing the merits when a motion combines jurisdictional and failure-to-state-a-claim arguments.

“As a threshold matter, the Court must address Defendants’ claim under Rule 12(b)(1) that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”

Summarily remands improper pro se removals: she promptly examines a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. 1455(b)(4) and remands where 1443's requirements are not met or Rooker-Feldman/Younger bar jurisdiction, rather than letting the case linger.

“Removal here was improper and remand is appropriate.”

Cautions

Rose denies summary judgment when the record presents a genuine dispute over a material fact, including disputes about defective equipment or compliance with a safety rule.

“The parties dispute whether Andrews correctly followed BNSF's training and rules governing the release of hand brakes.”

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion she declines to consider a movant's extraneous exhibits (FDA webpages, regulatory affidavits) and will not convert the motion to summary judgment to reach a preemption defense; the defense must wait for a developed record.

“For the reasons outlined below, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.”

Signed rulings

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

Farris v. American Medical Systems, Inc.
· 2015-08-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons outlined below, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.”

Charleston v. McCarthy
4:15-cv-00372-SMR-HCA · 2016-03-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs Complaint in this case fails to state a claim that is plausible on its face, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”

Motion to abate (defendant) Moot / procedural

“ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO ABATE”

Andrews v. BNSF Railway Co.
· 2018-01-04
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“As explained below, BNSF's motion is DENIED.”

J.S.X. ex rel. D.S.X. v. Foxhoven
· 2019-02-19
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“As explained below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

State v. Tennant
· 2017-06-23
Motion for leave to proceed ifp (defendant (pro se)) Granted

“the Court, aware that Defendant is pro se, finds Defendant has satisfied the requirements of section 1915(a) and the removal filings shall be docketed without prepayment of costs.”

Holladay v. Rockwell Collins, Inc.
1:18-cv-00009 · 2019-01-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, [ECF Nos. 33; 35]. ... For the reasons set out below, the motions are DENIED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Business Leaders in Christ v. University of Iowa
· 2019-02-06
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiff Business Leaders in Christ (‘BLinC’) seeks summary judgement in its favor on its various claims that the University violated its First Amendment rights ... As explained below, both motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants ... move for partial summary judgment in favor of the individual Defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. ... As explained below, both motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Hammes v. City of Davenport
· 2019-05-21
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.”

City of Council Bluffs v. U.S. Department of the Interior
· 2019-03-26
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 22], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 35] is DENIED.”

Draft for Judge Rose with the record in hand

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

Opens in Ezel Pro.

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