John Phil Gilbert
How Judge Gilbert decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A claim that already cleared sec.1915A threshold screening will usually survive a later Rule 12(b)(6) motion, because he treats the two standards as 'virtually the same'; he reserves fact-bound questions (here, the timing/extent of a prisoner's physical injury) for discovery and dispositive motions rather than resolving them at the pleadings.
“Counts 9 and 10 already survived screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a legal standard that is virtually the same as Rule 12(b)(6)”
Procedural preferences
He enforces SDIL Local Rule 7.1(c) strictly: a party who fails to respond to a summary-judgment motion (even after a Rule 56(e) notice and a show-cause order) is treated as admitting the motion's merits, and the case can be dismissed with prejudice on that basis.
“the Court construes Plaintiff's failure to respond to the pending summary judgment motion as an admission of the merits of the motion filed by Defendants.”
On a Monell / civil-conspiracy / RICO complaint he applies Twombly/Iqbal rigorously: conclusory 'labels and conclusions' and a bare assertion that a policy exists do not survive; a sec.1985 conspiracy among a city's own officials is barred by the intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine.
“A naked statement that a policy or practice exists and caused a constitutional violation is not enough to withstand a motion to dismiss.”
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.
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Habeas petition N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for sentence reduction 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.
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43) is GRANTED. See SDIL-LR 7.1(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) and 56(e). This action, including COUNT 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice against Defendants SZOKE, CASTILLO, and DUNCAN.”
“Defendant USA's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in Counts 9 and 10 (Doc. 81) is DENIED. Defendant is ORDERED to file an Answer to Counts 9 and 10 on or before FEBRUARY 6, 2024.”
“Finding that the Petitioner's claims lack any merit and finding that the Petitioner has lied under oath, the Court hereby DENIES his petition, DISMISSES this case with prejudice.”
“the Court GRANTS the motion (Doc. 150) and reduces the defendant's sentence of imprisonment from 210 months to 188 months. The Court attaches its standard order (AO Form 247) reflecting the sentence reduction.”
28 U.S.C. sec.1915(e)(2)(B) screening of a pro se IFP plaintiff's 16-count amended complaint (First-Amendment retaliation / ADA / Rehabilitation Act / Monell / sec.1985-1986 conspiracy / civil RICO / Illinois Hate Crime Act, against a city + police). Read-not-counted (sua sponte screening, no party motion). Several counts dismissed: Count 13 Monell (no facts of an express policy/widespread custom/final-policymaker causation under Twombly/Iqbal -- 'A naked statement that a policy or practice exists ... is not enough') and Count 15 civil RICO dismissed WITHOUT prejudice; Counts 11 (sec.1986) and 14 (sec.1985(2), barred by the intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine) dismissed WITH prejudice; other claims allowed to proceed. Mixed prejudice. Grounding quote: 'Counts 12, 13, 15 and 16 ... are dismissed without prejudice; Counts 11 and 14 are dismissed with prejudice.' Good pattern material on his pleading-standard rigor even though excluded from motion stats.
Read-not-counted: the plaintiff's 'response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment' was construed as a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal signed by all appearing parties; the Court gave it effect and dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs. No contested motion was decided on the merits (the MSJ was never ruled), so this is excluded from motion stats. Grounding quote: 'the Court finds that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.'
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 257 days (N = 21).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 136 days (N = 2).
Counts are illustrative from a capped enumeration, not an authoritative caseload census; no FJC IDB baseline loaded on this record.