Docia L. Dalby
Judge Dalby no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Dalby decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
When a party challenges the validity of a settlement -- here a prisoner swearing he agreed only under a threat of violence -- she will not resolve the dispute on summary judgment. Faced with sworn contradictory statements, she recommends an evidentiary hearing, applying the Fifth Circuit rule that a challenge to a settlement's validity must be tried, not decided on the papers.
“where there is a challenge to the validity of a settlement agreement, the parties must be allowed an evidentiary hearing on disputed issues of the validity and scope of the agreement.”
She holds prisoner-plaintiffs to a demanding standard on retaliation claims, requiring more than a conclusory assertion of retaliatory motive: the inmate must plead a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred and an adverse act that is more than de minimis. Conclusory retaliation claims are dismissed as frivolous at screening.
“To state a claim of retaliation an inmate must ... be prepared to establish that but for the retaliatory motive the complained of incident ... would not have occurred. This places a significant burden on the inmate.... The inmate must produce direct evidence of motivation or, the more probable scenario, allege a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.”
She screens prisoner filings rigorously under 28 U.S.C. 1915, enforcing the three-strikes fee bar and recharacterizing claims to their proper vehicle: a 1983 suit that in substance seeks release from confinement is, under Preiser v. Rodriguez, a habeas matter and is dismissed (without prejudice) so the prisoner can refile in habeas.
“a challenge by a prisoner to the fact or duration of his confinement, and seeking an immediate or earlier release from that confinement, must be pursued through a habeas corpus proceeding rather than through an ordinary civil rights action.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is recommended that the defendants' Motions to Dismiss, rec.doc.nos. 11 and 25, be granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claims for monetary damages asserted against the defendants in their official capacities, and that this action be referred back for further proceedings.”
“It is recommended that the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, rec.doc.no. 43, be denied, and that this matter be referred back for an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Settlement and/or Reinstate Lawsuit, rec.doc.no. 37.”
“It is the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief be dismissed as untimely.”
Section 1915(e) / 1915A screening of a pro se prisoner 1983 complaint that sought immediate release from confinement after an allegedly wrongful parole revocation. Recommended dismissed without prejudice because a claim challenging the fact or duration of confinement and seeking release must be pursued in habeas corpus, not an ordinary civil-rights action. This screening recommendation did not resolve a party motion. Grounding quote: "It is recommended that the plaintiff's action be dismissed, without prejudice to any rights he may have to pursue habeas corpus relief in a separate proceeding."
Application of the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g): the inmate had three or more prior actions dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim and was not under imminent danger, so the court had ordered him to pre-pay the full filing fee; when he did not, dismissal was recommended. This screening recommendation did not resolve a party motion. Grounding quote: "It is recommended that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure of the plaintiff to pay the Court's filing fee."
Section 1915(e) / 1915A screening of a pro se prisoner 1983 suit alleging destruction of legal materials, retaliation, and denial of access to the courts. Recommended dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim: random property deprivation is not actionable where an adequate state post-deprivation remedy exists (Parratt / Hudson); the retaliation allegations were conclusory and at most a de minimis adverse act; and the access-to-courts claim failed for lack of actual prejudice. This screening recommendation did not resolve a party motion. Grounding quote: "It is recommended that the plaintiff's action be dismissed as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) and 1915A."
“It is further recommended that the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, rec.doc.no. 29, be denied, and that the Motion for Summary Judgment of defendant Craig White, rec.doc.no. 18, be granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claims asserted against this defendant, with prejudice, and that this action be dismissed.”
“It is the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, rec.doc.nos. 26 and 94, be granted in part, dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies the plaintiff's claims asserted against defendants Donald Johnson and Michael Hegmann.”
“It is the further recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, rec.doc.no. 53 and 109, and the defendants' motions to dismiss, rec.doc.nos. 24, 105 and 112, be denied, and that this matter be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings in connection with the plaintiff's claim that defendants Jonna Nickens, Lora Rodriguez and Charlene Haydel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to provide an appropriate diet for his medical condition.”
“It is the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, rec.doc.no. 34, be denied, that the defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, rec.doc.nos. 15 and 56, be granted, and that this action be dismissed, without prejudice to any state law claims which the plaintiff may have.”
“It is the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied, that the defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted and this action be dismissed.”
“It is recommended that the plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment, rec.doc.nos. 187 and 211, be denied and that the Motion for Summary Judgment of defendants Pam Porter, Carla Hawkins, Cathy Roule and Jolynn Williams, rec.doc.no. 214, be granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claims asserted against these defendants, with prejudice.”
“the Motion to Dismiss of defendant Gary Wilson, rec.doc.no. 220, be denied as moot, and that this action be dismissed, with prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Compel, rec.doc.no. 154, be and it is hereby DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Her enumerated assigned docket reflects a consent magistrate's mix: removed and original diversity personal-injury suits (slip-and-fall and auto cases against retailers and individuals), an employment civil-rights case, a truth-in-lending matter, and Social Security disability and SSI appeals decided on the administrative record. Across eight terminated consent civil cases from this older slice, the time from filing to termination ran from roughly 8 months to about 3 years (median around 16-17 months), with the Social Security appeals resolving fastest. The substantive referral work for which she wrote reports and recommendations sits on dockets assigned to the district judges and is not captured by the assigned-judge field.
A historical record
Judge Dalby no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.