Denise Page Hood
How Judge Hood decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Commissioner's jurisdictional motion to dismiss a Social Security appeal (refusal to reopen), she will deny it where the claimant pleads a colorable constitutional claim -- the existence of such a claim is a legal question for the court and overcomes the statutory bar on reviewing refusals to reopen.
“Since Plaintiff alleges a colorable constitutional claim, the existence of which is determined by the court, this case will not be dismissed.”
Procedural preferences
Routinely resolves Social Security appeals by adopting the magistrate judge's R&R on the cross-motions for summary judgment; when no objection is filed the disposition follows the R&R, and even on objection (Everman) she reviews de novo and explains her agreement. Frame SSA arguments to the magistrate first.
“The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, DENIES Estrada’s Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
Cautions
Reconsideration under E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h) requires a 'palpable defect' (an obvious, clear error) whose correction would change the disposition; re-arguing the merits or adding new factual allegations that do not address the actual basis for the ruling will not succeed.
“Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration completely fails to address the grounds for dismissal. His motion ... contains additional factual allegations regarding the merits of his underlying claims. The motion presents no arguments why the dismissal under § 1915(g) was incorrect.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 4 |
Granted: 2Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Estrada’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#14] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#17] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Weredick’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#10] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#12] is DENIED.”
“Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 9, filed September 3, 2013] is DENIED.”
“it is ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 7, is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Nature mix observed across her enumeration. As Chief Judge she carried a large duty-docket of search/seizure-warrant and miscellaneous applications (not counted as merits cases), plus Social Security, prisoner civil-rights, criminal, and government civil-enforcement cases. Observational, not coverage-complete.