Stacey Diane Neumann
How Judge Neumann decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a motion to reconsider, Neumann applies the Rule 59(e) manifest-error / newly-discovered-evidence standard strictly and will not entertain a rehash of previously rejected arguments, even from a self-represented defendant.
“A Rule 59(e) motion 'is not the venue to ... permit a party to advance arguments it should have developed prior to judgment ... nor is it the mechanism to regurgitate old arguments previously considered and rejected.'”
Procedural preferences
In a multi-count qualified-immunity motion, Neumann rules count-by-count rather than disposing of the whole case at once, letting a single well-pleaded claim (here, First Amendment retaliation) survive even where the bulk of the complaint is dismissed.
“Based on the record currently before the Court, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Gladu's First Amendment retaliation claim.”
Cautions
In a section 1983 excessive-force and false-arrest suit, Neumann treated qualified immunity as an independent, alternative basis for summary judgment even after finding no underlying constitutional violation -- a belt-and-suspenders analysis defendants should not skip pleading.
“Even if Rolerson had arrested Lane without probable cause and used excessive force in doing so, Lane has not shown 'the law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer in' Rolerson's shoes 'would be on notice that his actions would violate the Fourth Amendment.'”
On a motion to suppress, Neumann applies the plain-view doctrine item-by-item rather than to a seized collection as a whole, suppressing evidence whose incriminating nature required reading or close inspection to discern even where other items seized in the same search were properly admitted.
“In general, a written document does not fall into the plain view exception if a police officer must read the document to understand its incriminating nature.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court GRANTS the United States of America's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9).”
“Here, Mr. Ericson has not identified any manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence. ... Therefore, his motion to reconsider (ECF No. 129) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ... Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim (Count I), the Equal Protection claim (Count II), the Due Process claim (Count III), and the Takings Clause claim (Count V) ... Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claim (Count VII) is DENIED.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 66)”
“and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69).”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss and HEREBY DISMISSES Count Two and the case.”
“Having raised no basis in law for the dismissal of his indictment, Mr. Ericson's motions requesting such relief (ECF Nos. 76, 89, 90, 123) are DENIED.”
“For these reasons, I GRANT Mr. Ericson's motion to suppress the birth and death certificates and the seven ID cards and DENY his motion to suppress the passport and the American Consumer Express Credit Card, the Harold Fedoruk & Associates Business Services Card, and the Courtesy Check Card. ECF Nos. 77, 115, 116.”
“I therefore GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) and dismiss Plaintiff's claims in excess of $16,850.75.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Blodgett's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 45, is GRANTED, and I find that Mr. Blodgett is entitled to property damages in the amount of $16,716.77.”
“Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 3, is DENIED.”
“The Recommended Decision, ECF No. 1239, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED in its entirety. Accordingly, Ms. Greenlaw's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2255, ECF No. 1225, is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the City and Rolerson's motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Neumann's early-tenure docket (Aug 2024 onward) includes civil-rights, employment/contract, mortgage foreclosure, admiralty, immigration, and criminal matters, plus a steady stream of self-represented prisoner civil-rights complaints that are screened and often dismissed at the outset. Magistrate Judges John C. Nivison and Karen Frink Wolf are her most frequent referral magistrates.
Put Judge Neumann's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Neumann actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Neumann's own signed orders and cites them.