John C. Nivison
How Judge Nivison decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Recommends dismissing a Defend Trade Secrets Act claim premised on threatened rather than actual misappropriation, declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 41) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.”
Procedural preferences
On a motion to dismiss, sifts the claims, dismissing most while allowing a single well-pleaded Section 1983 theory to proceed.
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 31) is hereby ACCEPTED. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is DENIED IN PART as to the Plaintiffs' claim under 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983 arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to hold a hearing on whether their home constituted a 'dangerous building' under Maine law. The motion is otherwise GRANTED IN PART, and all of the Plaintiffs' other claims are DISMISSED.”
Cautions
On removal, recommends granting a state defendant's motion to dismiss and denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 11) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED. The Maine Department of Corrections' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 41) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 31) is hereby ACCEPTED. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is DENIED IN PART as to the Plaintiffs' claim under 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983 arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to hold a hearing on whether their home constituted a 'dangerous building' under Maine law. The motion is otherwise GRANTED IN PART, and all of the Plaintiffs' other claims are DISMISSED.”
“In light of this disposition, the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT, and the prior Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 9) is REJECTED AS MOOT.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 11) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED. The Maine Department of Corrections' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED.”
“Nobrega's Objection to Removal (ECF No. 5) and Motion to Remand (ECF No. 7) are DENIED.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 15) is hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED (ECF No. 12). This case is, accordingly, DISMISSED.”
On preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) of a pro se complaint alleging that a county sheriff's office and various officials conspired against the plaintiff, Nivison's Recommended Decision and Supplemental Recommended Decision called for sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a plausible claim. The district judge adopted the recommendations and imposed a pre-filing injunction because of the plaintiff's extensive history of similar implausible suits in the district.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sample of dockets naming John C. Nivison as assigned or referral judge, drawn from several filing-year windows. Mix observed: personal-injury/insurance diversity suits, ERISA benefit disputes, employment discrimination, civil-rights removal cases, grand-jury/prisoner-petition miscellaneous matters, and a substantial Social Security disability-appeal cohort. In the 2019-2022 window he mostly manages pretrial scheduling and discovery while a district judge (Woodcock or Levy) decides the dispositive motions; in the 2014-2019 and 2017-2021 windows, by contrast, a sizeable share of his civil docket -- Social Security appeals and several general civil suits -- was consented to his full jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), so he entered the final dispositive rulings himself.
Put Judge Nivison's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Nivison actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Nivison's own signed orders and cites them.