John H. Rich III
Judge Rich no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Rich decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In discrimination and pro se civil suits, once a defendant establishes a statute-of-limitations bar, Rich treats it as dispositive and does not reach the merits of the underlying claims.
“The clear applicability of res judicata to the plaintiff's complaint in this action makes it unnecessary to consider the defendant's alternative arguments.”
On a motion to dismiss, Rich takes design/copyright substantial-similarity and other fact-bound merits questions seriously as jury questions rather than resolving them at the pleading stage, even where the defendant has a colorable argument.
“Applying this approach to the case at hand, I cannot conclude that no reasonable jury could find that the Manfred and Ellington designs are substantially similar.”
Procedural preferences
Rich applies the district's local rules on unopposed statements of fact strictly, treating a nonmoving party's failure to properly support or controvert facts as a concession of them.
“Local Rule 56 directs that facts contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material facts, if supported by record citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted.”
Rich readily grants leave to amend early in a case, applying the liberal Rule 15(a)(2) default rather than the more demanding good-cause standard, so long as no scheduling order has yet issued.
“The plaintiffs filed the Motion to Amend on June 30, 2020, prior to the issuance of any scheduling order. Therefore, the liberal default rule applies.”
Cautions
Motions for reconsideration of Rich's own orders face a high bar; he will not treat newly surfaced evidence as 'newly discovered' if the movant could have testified to the same facts earlier.
“The Letter is hardly new to the plaintiff: he admits that he wrote it. ... He cannot now employ a motion for reconsideration as the vehicle to place before the court evidence that could and should have been presented prior to the court's order on summary judgment.”
In Social Security appeals -- his single highest-volume docket -- Rich affirms the Commissioner far more often than he remands, and requires a claimant to show more than that the ALJ could have weighed the evidence differently.
“Finding no reversible error, I affirm the commissioner's decision.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“I accordingly recommend that that motion (Docket No. 15) be denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the proposed findings of fact herein be adopted and that the motion to suppress be DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the Court summarily DENY this 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 Petition pursuant to Rule Governing Section 2254 Proceedings 4.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the proposed findings of fact be adopted and the motion to suppress DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion To Amend is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that defendant Homestead's motion to dismiss Count I (Docket No. 24) be DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the motions to dismiss of the Walmart defendants (Docket No. 19) and Mohawk (Docket No. 24) be DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the motion of defendants the United States of America, the Bureau of Prisons, the Northeast Regional Office of the Bureau of Prisons, the Metropolitan Detention Center, and the United States Marshals Service, to dismiss all claims asserted against them in this action be GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's request for in forma pauperis status is GRANTED, and I recommend that the court DISMISS this action with prejudice and DENY the motion for an injunction as moot.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the defendant's motion for summary judgment be GRANTED as to all claims asserted in the plaintiff's complaint.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the court GRANT the motion to dismiss.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Across the sampled windows, his civil docket was dominated by Social Security disability appeals consented to his own jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) -- by far his largest identifiable non-referral caseload -- alongside a smaller mix of other consent-civil matters (admiralty/maritime contract, ERISA, insurance coverage), prisoner Section 1983 suits, and (in his earlier years) a substantial criminal-referral docket of suppression and detention motions. His final two years (2020-2022) show mostly short warrant/subpoena and other miscellaneous criminal-referral matters rather than new consent-civil filings.
A historical record
Judge Rich 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.