Philip M. Frazier
Judge Frazier no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Frazier decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a defendant's summary-judgment motion he holds the movant to its initial Rule 56 burden: a motion that argues only a theory the court has already dismissed, while never engaging the one claim left in the case, fails to negate an essential element and will be recommended for denial.
“Thus, Fahim failed to carry his initial summary judgment burden of negating an essential element of Ford's case with undisputed evidence ... or pointing to the absence of evidence to support an essential element of Ford's case.”
Procedural preferences
On PLRA exhaustion he reads the grievance for whether it gave the prison fair notice: a passing mention buried in a grievance about a different subject does not exhaust a distinct claim, but where an inmate could not complete his appeal because he never received the required lower-level responses, the remaining remedy is treated as unavailable and the claim is exhausted.
“With respect to Count 2, Magistrate Judge Frazier found that Hill had failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies because his grievance was not sufficient to alert a reasonable person that he was complaining of solicitation and exposure to assaults by other inmates.”
He will recommend the terminal Rule 41(b) sanction -- dismissal for failure to prosecute -- where a pro se plaintiff stops keeping a current address on file and ignores a show-cause order and pending motions, though a district judge may decline to adopt that recommendation if the record suggests the plaintiff never received the filings.
“the Report and Recommendation ... of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier recommending this Court dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for plaintiff Robert Moore's failure to prosecute.”
Cautions
On a prisoner access-to-courts claim he requires intentional interference -- 'active misuse of power' -- not mere negligence: library staff who erroneously but honestly miscalculate a filing deadline and still afford library time toward the perceived deadline have not committed a constitutional violation.
“At most, the evidence would support a finding of careless or negligent conduct. The evidence could not support a finding that either defendant actively misused authority to regulate plaintiffs library access.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 41) be GRANTED in part and declared MOOT in part. At the close of this case, judgment should be entered in favor of both defendants on Count 1.”
“ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 55); GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Best's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 34). the motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks to dismiss Count 2 of the Complaint ... for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The motion is DENIED in all other respects”
“ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 62); OVERRULES Fahim's objections (Doc. 64); and DENIES defendant Magid Fahim's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40).”
Frazier recommended dismissing the pro se prisoner's case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute because the plaintiff had not kept a current address on file, ignored a show-cause order, and failed to respond to two summary-judgment motions. District Judge J. Phil Gilbert rejected the recommendation after the plaintiff filed a change of address suggesting he had not received the filings, and instead re-served the motion and set a new response deadline. Because the recommendation was not adopted, it produced no final disposition of a party motion. It illustrates Frazier's willingness to recommend the terminal Rule 41(b) sanction for an apparently abandoned case and the district judge's check on that recommendation.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 417 days (N = 5).
Frazier's docket combined a large prisoner civil-rights referral stream (reports and recommendations to the district judges, reflected in the published-opinion set) with civil cases he carried to final judgment on the parties' consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(c). The durations below are drawn from five of his consent cases and are a small, selection-biased sample, not a random caseload median.
A historical record
Judge Frazier 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.