Stephen C. Williams
How Judge Williams rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Williams no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Williams
Stephen C. Williams served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Illinois from January 2011 through December 2018. Before joining the bench, he served in the Marine Corps and practiced criminal defense and personal injury law.
How Judge Williams decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Baird's prisoner case, Williams recommended denying preliminary injunctive relief because the feared future harm was too speculative. The district judge adopted his recommendation after de novo review.
“Finding that an injunction requiring a transfer would improperly intrude upon the discretion of prison officials, that Plaintiff did not show he would suffer irreparable harm were he not placed in protective custody, and that Plaintiff's fears were too generalized and speculative to necessitate an injunction, Magistrate Judge Williams recommends denying Plaintiff's motion.”
Procedural preferences
On PLRA exhaustion he draws a sharp line at when suit was filed: an inmate who sues before the Administrative Review Board has reached a final determination on his grievance has not exhausted, and the case is dismissed without prejudice: a prisoner may not file first and exhaust second.
“Plaintiff filed suit prior to the related grievance reaching final determination. It is well established that an inmate cannot file suit first, then reach administrative exhaustion second.”
In Dorko v. Musgrave, he recommended granting an exhaustion-based summary judgment motion after the warned plaintiff failed to respond and the grievance records independently showed nonexhaustion. The district judge adopted the recommendation and dismissed without prejudice.
“Magistrate Judge Williams recommends granting Defendants’ exhaustion-based summary judgment motion for two alternative reasons: (1) Plaintiff’s failure to file a response acted as an admission of the merits of the motion, and regardless, (2) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.”
Cautions
In Murphy v. Smith, Williams recommended denying exhaustion-based summary judgment after a Pavey hearing because the prisoner reasonably relied on a nurse who said she would file his signed grievance. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
“The Court finds that this evidence suggests that Plaintiff was prevented from filing administrative remedies with respect to his excessive force claim. ... it was reasonable for Plaintiff to rely on Nurse Millard's statement that she would do so.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the undersigned district judge ADOPTS Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 33) and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 1). ... Judge Williams is correct in his assessment of the speculative nature of future harm”
“the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge William's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 69). Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. 38) is DENIED, and Plaintiff's case will proceed on the merits.”
“The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge William=s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 82) and GRANTS Defendants' motions for summary judgment (Docs. 55 & 58). ... The cruel and unusual punishment claim is DISMISSED without prejudice ... The deliberate indifference to a serious medical need claim is DISMISSED without prejudice”
“the Court ADOPTS (Doc. 25) Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation in its entirety and GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) filed by Defendants. There being no claims remaining, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 85) and DENIES Defendant Wexford's summary judgment motion (Doc. 48).”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docs. 134 & 135). The Court GRANTS summary judgment as to Defendants' Kellerhouse, Spiller, Ohlau, Murray, Conder, Ramos, Hulick, and Funk as to Plaintiff's claim of denying him a transfer to a lower security prison in retaliation for filing grievances. ... However, the Court DENIES summary judgment as to Defendants Gary Rednour, Craig Mitchell, Donald Hulick, and David Rednour on Plaintiff's claims regarding his cell shakedown and subsequent disciplinary charge. The Court further DENIES summary judgment as to Kellerhouse, Spiller, Murray, Hulick, and Fairchild on Plaintiff's retaliation claim regarding his security rating.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 138) Is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, such that the only claims remaining for trial are as follows: 1. Plaintiff Cooper's claim against Defendants Barbara Cooksey, Jon Kline, Michael Proctor and Angela Windsor for violation of his First Amendment right to practice his religion by their alleged denial of an ovo-lacto diet ... 3. Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Jon Kline for violation of his First Amendment right to practice his religion when Kline allegedly denied Plaintiff access to the prison chapel.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Matt Purdom's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 114) is GRANTED, and the claims against him are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“the undersigned District Judge ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51), and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants= motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45), in that only Defendant Sergeant Robert Richert is GRANTED summary judgment. The claims against Defendants Sergeant Jeff Briddick and Deputy Tony Court shall proceed.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 112). The Court GRANTS Summary Judgment as to Defendants Merchant, James, Sutton, Fernandez, and Crow on Plaintiff's Count I for violations of the Eighth Amendment for his inhumane conditions of confinement. The Court further GRANTS Defendants Bradley, Sutton, Fernandez, and Crow's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's Count II retaliation claim.”
“The undersigned District Judge ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 59), FINDS that genuine issues of material fact remain which preclude summary judgment for Defendants, and DENIES Defendants' summary judgment motion (Doc. 53).”
“the Court ADOPTS in part and REJECTS in part Magistrate Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 57). ... the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 54). The Court GRANTS the motion as to all John Doe Defendants (including Greg Rowald and Robert Tellor), Charlie Glidewell and George Schaefer, and DISMISSES these Defendants with prejudice. The Court DENIES the motion as to Jerome Vann.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 224 days (N = 8).
Williams'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 eight of his consent cases and are a small, selection-biased sample, not a random caseload median.
A historical record
Judge Williams no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.