Samuel Alfred Crow
How Judge Crow rules, drawn from 4 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Crow no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Crow
Sam A. Crow was a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Crow received a commission on December 10, 1981. Judge Crow assumed senior status on November 15, 1996 and served until death on December 2, 2022.
How Judge Crow decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In White's administrative-segregation case, Crow applied the Sandin and DiMarco framework and found no protected liberty interest because the segregation served a legitimate security purpose and did not impose an atypical hardship.
“the decision to segregate the Maryland prisoners involved a legitimate penological purpose ... the court does not find that the plaintiff’s conditions of confinement in administrative segregation created an atypical hardship.”
In Robinson v. Medevac MidAmerica, Crow converted a Rule 12(c) motion to summary judgment and granted it. He found no prejudice from conversion without further notice because the plaintiff had ignored both the motion and a show cause order giving her an opportunity to respond and present evidence.
“This case presents the unusual situation in which plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the court’s conversion, without further notice, of defendant’s motion from a judgment on the pleadings to a summary judgment motion.”
Procedural preferences
In Walker's habeas case, Crow gave the petitioner time to decide whether to pursue further state remedies and ordered a status report before resuming review of her petition.
“Based upon the procedural history of this case, the Court will allow Petitioner additional time to decide whether she wishes to pursue additional state-court remedies to attempt to exhaust her claims.”
Cautions
In Redick v. McKiearnan, Crow denied three postjudgment motions under Rule 60(b). The plaintiff repeated his earlier exhaustion arguments and presented no information or argument that could not have been offered before.
“Rule 60(b) is not a means ‘to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the reargument merely advances new arguments or supporting facts which were available for presentation at the time of the original argument.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ. Pro. 12(c) is converted to a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56, and is granted.”
“IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment (Doc. 68), motion to reconsider (Doc. 69) and motion to alter judgment (Doc. 71) are denied.”
28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition. On initial Rule 4 review, Crow found the claims appeared unexhausted (petitioner conceded she had not presented them to the Kansas appellate courts) but, recognizing her understandable confusion about appealing a 60-1507 denial entered in her criminal case, declined to dismiss and instead directed her to file a status report on whether she would return to state court. Rules on no party motion; recorded as a screening order. Grounding quote: "IT IS THEREFORE ORDERD that Petitioner is granted until and including December 10, 2021, to file a written status report informing the Court whether she intends to pursue further state-court remedies on her claims."
“IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED the motion of defendant Stermer to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (Doc. 28) and the motion of plaintiff to dismiss defendants Stermer and Martin (Doc. 33) are granted.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Martin and Richardson (Doc. 30) is granted.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant Stouffer (Doc. 35) and his motion for summary judgment against defendants Richardson and Martin (Doc. 37) are denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 34), his motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 38), and his combined motion for the appointment of counsel and to expedite (Doc. 41) are denied.”
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Crow was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2022.
| Motions pending more than six months | 1 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Crow no longer hears cases. 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.