Kenneth P. Neiman
How Judge Neiman rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Neiman no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Neiman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When an employer relies on the adequacy of an internal investigation as an affirmative defense, he treats the underlying investigative materials as placed at issue, while preserving distinct legal advice through targeted redactions.
“[b]y raising the Faragher-Ellerth defense . . . Defendants deliberately placed the internal investigation of Plaintiff’s complaints at issue in this lawsuit”
For habeas equitable tolling, he requires both an extraordinary circumstance beyond the petitioner's control and diligent pursuit of rights; ordinary pro se difficulty is insufficient.
“a habeas petitioner seeking to invoke equitable tolling must demonstrate that (1) ‘extraordinary circumstance’ prevented him from filing within the statutory deadline and that (2) he has pursued his rights diligently.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court recommends, first, that the Municipal Defendants’ and Darcangelo and Morey’s motions to dismiss be ALLOWED”
“second, that Coury’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be ALLOWED.”
“The court obviously does not agree and recommends that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be ALLOWED.”
“For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.”
“Defendant Department of State Police’s motion to dismiss is ALLOWED as to Counts I and V, as well as to Count III, to the extent that count includes claims against the Department of State Police under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and Mass. G. L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I. The Department of State Police’s motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED as to Count IV, and as well to Count III, to the extent that count includes claims under Mass. G. L. c. 258.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is ALLOWED.”
“For the reasons stated, the court recommends that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be ALLOWED.”
“For the reasons stated, the court recommends that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be ALLOWED.”
“Defendants’ motion is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part as described above.”
“Defendants City of Holyoke, Lieutenant David Pratt, Detective Brian Duke and Detective Anthony Brach’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Counts I, II (as to Duke and Brach only), III, IV, and VI through IX but DENIED as to Counts II and V, both in regard to Pratt only.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 174 days (N = 15).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 4 days (N = 14).
The fifteen terminated consent matters included civil-rights, employee-benefits, labor, administrative-review, insurance, Social Security, copyright, environmental, and personal-injury disputes.
A historical record
Judge Neiman 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.