Stephanie Marie Rose
How Judge Rose decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Applies a lenient 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) standard to pro se in-forma-pauperis affidavits, accepting a less-than-detailed affidavit where the litigant's indigence and the nature of the action are shown. A pro se party's IFP request will usually be granted even if the underlying filing is then dismissed/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
Resolves a Rule 12(b)(1) subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge as a THRESHOLD matter before reaching Rule 12(b)(6) merits. Brief jurisdiction first when she is hearing a combined 12(b)(1)/12(b)(6) motion.
“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
On summary judgment she will NOT resolve genuinely disputed material facts; where the record shows a real dispute (e.g. whether equipment was defective or whether the plaintiff followed a safety rule), she denies the motion and sends it to the jury. Do not move for summary judgment on a contested factual record.
“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.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to abate N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to proceed ifp N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons outlined below, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“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.”
“ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO ABATE”
“As explained below, BNSF's motion is DENIED.”
“As explained below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“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.”