Christine Noland
How Judge Noland rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Noland no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Noland
Christine Noland served as a full-time United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Louisiana in Baton Rouge. The district court reappointed her to an eight-year term beginning December 4, 2003.
How Judge Noland decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
She holds the party that moves for summary judgment to its initial burden regardless of who it is: when a pro se plaintiff moves for judgment in his own favor without a statement of undisputed facts, affidavits, or competent evidence, she recommends denying the motion rather than reaching the merits, and refers the case back for further proceedings.
“The plaintiff's motion should be denied because he has not met his initial burden of establishing the absence of disputed material facts. ... in the absence of any attempt by the plaintiff to properly support his motion through competent evidence ... his motion is subject to dismissal as a matter of law.”
She enforces the Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion requirement strictly, requiring proper completion of every step of the prison grievance process before suit; grievances rejected on initial screening for containing 'multiple claims,' or filed or concluded after the complaint, do not exhaust, and unexhausted claims are dismissed (including sua sponte and as to unserved defendants where the failure is clear on the record).
“not only must the prisoner exhaust all available remedies, but such exhaustion must be proper, including compliance with all prison deadlines and other critical procedural rules.”
In diversity and declaratory-judgment matters she writes a thorough, authority-heavy analysis: faced with a request to declare indemnity rights, she applied the Declaratory Judgment Act discretion factors and Louisiana's Meloy rule to recommend dismissal as premature, declining to resolve an indemnitor's duty to defend before the indemnitee's fault is adjudicated on the merits.
“it is premature to request that this Court resolve the indemnification issue, and any decision by the Court at this juncture would not completely resolve that issue.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is recommended that the Motion to Dismiss Action as to FEMA or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 14) filed by defendant, United States of America, on behalf of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, should be GRANTED; that the Motion to Dismiss FEMA's Motion for Summary Judgment, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff (R. Doc. 17) should be DENIED; and that plaintiff's claims against FEMA, the State of Louisiana, and George Cotton should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Motion to Dismiss FEMA's Motion for Summary Judgment, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff (R. Doc. 17) should be DENIED”
“it is recommended that the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and Alternative, Rule 56 Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 25) filed by defendant, Turner Industries Group, L.L.C., be GRANTED and that this matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature because Turner's obligation to indemnify and provide cost of defense cannot be determined until there has been a judicial finding in state court as to the liability, if any, of plaintiff, Exxon Mobil Corporation.”
“It is recommended that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment rec.doc.no. 9, be denied, and that this matter be referred back for further proceedings.”
“It is recommended that the defendants' motion for summary judgment, rec.doc.no. 29, be granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claims against the moving defendants, without prejudice, as a result of the plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies as mandated by 42 U.S.C. 1997e, but with prejudice to his refiling the same claim in forma pauperis.”
“it is recommended that the Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiffs Failure to Appear for Deposition and for Expenses and Attorney’s Fees Resulting from Same (R. Doc. 26) filed by defendant, Wackenhut Corporation, be GRANTED IN PART, in that defendant should be awarded five hundred dollars ($500.00) in attorney’s fees and costs for the failure of plaintiff, Sandra Singh, to attend her deposition in this matter, and DENIED IN PART, relative to defendant’s request to have this case dismissed.”
“it is recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (R. Doc. 3) filed by petitioner, Charles David Whitehead, be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“it is recommended that the Motion to Remand or to Abstain (R. Doc. 15) filed by plaintiff, Firefighters’ Retirement Systems, should be GRANTED and that this matter should be REMANDED to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, for further proceedings,”
“It is recommended that the Motion for Remand to State Court (R. Doc. 22) filed by plaintiffs, Kern A. Reese and Dorothy F. Reese, be DENIED and that the presence of the non-diverse defendants, Rebekah Cambre, Agatha Marshall, and Joan Greer, be ignored for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”
“it is recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 17) filed by the defendant, State of Louisiana, Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice, should be GRANTED, that the claims of plaintiff, Joyce Spears, should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and that judgment should be entered accordingly.”
“it is recommended that the Motion for Remand (R. Doc. 6) filed by plaintiff, Daniel J. McGlynn, should be GRANTED and that this matter should be REMANDED to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, for further proceedings.”
“it is recommended that the undersigned’s prior recommendation concerning the Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss the State of Louisiana’s In Rem Claim (R. Doc. 39) filed by defendant, Kition Shipping Co., Ltd, should STAND and that such motion should be DENIED.”
“Specifically, that motion should be GRANTED IN PART, in that the Kition Interests should be required to promptly supplement their discovery responses whenever they receive new or corrective information concerning the KITION’s location and upcoming voyage(s), until the discovery deadline expires in this matter, and DENIED IN PART, in that the Kition Interests should not be required to post security as a result of their having pled a limitation of liability defense in their answer.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled cases include consent civil matters decided by Noland and referred motions on which she made recommendations. They cover Social Security, removal, insurance, employment, and maritime disputes. This small selected set does not measure her total caseload.
A historical record
Judge Noland 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.