Daniel Dale Crabtree
How Judge Crabtree decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a § 1981 (and analogous discrimination) claim at the pleading stage, what carries the day is concrete 'context and detail' tying the adverse act to a discriminatory motive; he disregards vague, conclusory comparator allegations ('treated white patients more favorably') but credits specific, defendant-known facts that make a 'but-for race' inference plausible. Plead specifics, not labels.
“a plaintiff must include enough context and detail to link the allegedly adverse employment action to a discriminatory or retaliatory motive with something besides sheer speculation.”
Procedural preferences
Will not decide a Rule 12(c)/12(b) motion on the pleadings when both sides put matters outside the pleadings in front of him; instead he converts it to a Rule 56 summary-judgment motion under Rule 12(d), gives express notice, and sets a supplemental-briefing deadline. If you attach affidavits/exhibits to (or against) a 12(c) motion, expect conversion, not a pleadings ruling.
“Because defendant has submitted materials outside the pleadings, the court hereby notifies the parties that it will treat defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as one seeking summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.”
An unopposed summary-judgment motion is not an automatic win. Even when the non-movant waives the right to controvert the facts, he independently examines whether the movant carried its initial burden and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law before granting.
“even if the non-moving party fails to respond, the district court may not grant the motion without first examining the moving party’s submission to determine if it has met its initial burden of demonstrating that no material issues of fact remain for trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Cautions
Enforces procedural deadlines strictly, including against pro se litigants: unanswered Rule 36 requests for admission are deemed conclusively admitted, and failure to respond to a dispositive motion within the local-rule window waives the right to controvert its facts. Pro se status does not excuse compliance with the rules.
“Plaintiff’s pro se status can’t save her from this harsh result.”
Rejects attempts to obtain advance evidentiary rulings at the pleading stage. A Rule 12(f) motion to strike (or a Rule 408 objection raised on a motion to dismiss) is not the vehicle to resolve admissibility; he defers that to a motion in limine or summary judgment.
“An analysis of whether evidence of the February 2022 meeting implicates Rule 408 is better suited for a motion in limine or one seeking summary judgment.”
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 = 5 |
Granted in part: 1Moot / procedural: 4 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 3 |
Granted: 1Moot / procedural: 2 | counts only |
| Judgment on the pleadings N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“the court hereby notifies the parties that it will treat defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as one seeking summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 42) is granted.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34) is granted. The court dismisses plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant USD 353 Wellington’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 53) is denied without prejudice as moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendant Robin Creamer’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 61) is denied without prejudice as moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendants Brenda Gray and Tammy Moore’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 63) is denied without prejudice as moot.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice (Doc. 28) is granted. The court dismisses defendant Kenneth D. Orr from this action.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) is denied without prejudice as moot.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 4) is granted in part and denied in part. The court grants the motion with respect to plaintiffs’ retaliation claims, although the court grants plaintiffs leave to amend those claims on or before July 28, 2023. The court denies the motion in all other respects.”
“Lastly, defendants ask the court to strike from the Complaint plaintiffs’ references to the February 2022 meeting ... on the grounds that those references violate D. Kan. R. 16.3(i). This request is denied.”