Linda Vivienne Parker
How Judge Parker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Gives pro se litigants latitude when they show some diligence: declined to dismiss a prisoner case for an address-update lapse where the plaintiff's recent filings showed his current address.
“the Court finds good cause not to dismiss the case at this time and extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file a response sixty (60) days from the entry of this Order.”
Procedural preferences
Objections to an R&R must be specific and labeled; vague, general, or recycled objections are treated as a complete failure to object (the same standard applied across the mied bench).
“The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.”
An amended complaint moots dispositive motions aimed at the superseded pleading -- expect a pending MTD/MJP to be denied as moot rather than carried over after an amendment.
“the Complaint to which the pending dispositive motions are directed has been superseded and the motions are moot.”
Cautions
Enforces prosecution duties: where counseled plaintiffs ignored motions and a show-cause order, she dismissed WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 41(b) after walking the four-factor Knoll/Wu test and finding lesser sanctions futile.
“Taken together, the relevant factors support dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice for failure to prosecute.”
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.
| Motions to dismiss N = 6 |
Granted: 2Moot / procedural: 4 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 4 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 1Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Rule 41b dismissal N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for judgment on pleadings N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Discovery motion N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to compel arbitration N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to amend N = 1 |
Granted in part: 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 ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 107) is GRANTED IN PART as to Defendants’ counterclaim of fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and DENIED IN PART as to the claims of tortious interference with a business relationship, tortious interference with an economic expectancy, and breach of contract”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 110) is DENIED AS MOOT”
“the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed by Robert Heighes, Daniel Karrick, and Melody Werner (ECF No. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents and Eastern Michigan University Police Department (ECF No. 29) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 13, 15, and 17) are DENIED AS MOOT.”
Pro se prisoner 1983 case. Magistrate Judge Stafford recommended dismissing for failure to prosecute (undeliverable mail / no address update). Parker DECLINED to adopt the R&R: 'the Court finds good cause not to dismiss the case at this time and extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file a response.' Rules on no party motion (the pending defendants' MSJ was NOT decided -- plaintiff got a second 60-day extension) -> excluded from stats. Illustrates her latitude toward pro se litigants who have shown some diligence.
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Defendant’s Answers and/or Objections to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (ECF No. 29) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION (ECF NO. 22)”
“DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 22)”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as untimely.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment (ECF No. 17) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion to drop/amend is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, IT IS ORDERED that within seven (7) days ... Plaintiff SHALL FILE an amended complaint naming both TDCC and Dow Silicones as Defendants”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Nature-of-suit mix from the Jan-Feb 2020 filing cohort she was assigned (N=15 terminated civil dockets). Broad civil docket: civil-rights (employment / other / prisoner), patent, ERISA, insurance, motor-vehicle PI / wrongful death, commercial contract, and Social Security. Plus duty-docket grand-jury and search/seizure-warrant miscellaneous matters (not counted).