Damon R. Leichty
How Judge Leichty decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate sentence he denies the petition and declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
“The court DENIES Mr. Bolden's petition to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and DENIES a certificate of appealability.”
Leichty applies the Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement strictly: filing before the grievance-response period expires, and before using the process for a missing response, does not exhaust available remedies.
“the undisputed facts nevertheless show he had available administrative remedies he hadn’t exhausted when he filed this lawsuit on January 10, 2024.”
Cautions
On a False Claims Act qui tam retaliation claim Leichty applies the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility framework and grants a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss with prejudice where the single retaliation count is not plausibly pleaded.
“AbbVie filed a motion to dismiss his claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court grants the motion.”
At the screening stage, Leichty allows a due-process claim to proceed when the pleaded facts plausibly allege that prison restitution was imposed without evidentiary support, while recognizing that a developed record may later refute the allegation.
“Therefore, while later development of the record may show otherwise, Mr. Potter has stated a plausible due process claim at this stage.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“AbbVie filed a motion to dismiss his claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court grants the motion.”
Pro se prisoner's 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint dismissed during 28 U.S.C. 1915A screening. 'This case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. 1915A.' This was a sua sponte screening disposition rather than a ruling on a party motion.
“The court DENIES Mr. Bolden's petition to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and DENIES a certificate of appealability.”
During screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court allowed Fourteenth Amendment damages and injunctive-relief claims to proceed where the prisoner plausibly alleged that a restitution sanction lacked any evidentiary support, and dismissed all other claims.
During screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court allowed an official-capacity Eighth Amendment claim for permanent injunctive relief to proceed against the warden, dismissed the remaining claims, and explained why the state corrections department and prison were not proper section 1983 defendants.
“For these reasons, the court: (1) DENIES Warden Smiley’s motion to strike Mr. Wright’s sur-reply (ECF 43);”
“GRANTS Warden Smiley’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 13);”
Put Judge Leichty's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Leichty actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Leichty's own signed orders and cites them.