Gordon Jay Quist
Judge Quist no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Quist decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In habeas cases he engages with each objection to a magistrate's report individually on de novo review rather than adopting wholesale, and will overrule an objection even where he agrees the underlying reasoning could have been clearer, so long as the bottom-line result survives.
“While the ALJ arguably could have provided a more detailed explanation for his decision to give the opinion limited weight, he observed that Dr. Hunt had also indicated that the objective medical evidence did not demonstrate that Plaintiff suffered from a severe physical impairment.”
On a fee petition, he holds the requesting party to strict proof of a reasonable rate and hours, and will sharply cut a fee request that is disproportionate to the result obtained rather than deferring to counsel's own billing judgment.
“Any suggestion that it would be reasonable to spend $174,786.50 (at $350 per hour), or even $79,902.40 (at $160 per hour), to recover $250 is patently absurd.”
Procedural preferences
He requires a corporate plaintiff to be represented by counsel and will treat a defendant's motion, however captioned, as the correct procedural vehicle (here recharacterizing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute) once the underlying ground for dismissal is established.
“Because Defendant's motion is based on Plaintiff's failure to obtain counsel as required by law and as ordered by the Court, the Court construes this motion as a Rule 41(b) motion for involuntary dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute or to comply with the Court's orders.”
Cautions
In Section 1983 retaliation and misconduct-ticket cases he applies the PLRA exhaustion requirement strictly, crediting a defendant's uncontradicted evidence that the plaintiff never separately grieved the specific defendant or claim at issue, even where the plaintiff grieved a related event.
“Plaintiff has offered no basis for denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in light of Defendants' uncontradicted affidavits stating that they were not responsible for the decision to deny his request for corrective eye surgery.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion To Enforce Settlement Agreement (docket no. 90) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 76) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to obtain counsel (docket no. 30) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 37 (docket no. 36) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (docket no. 12) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion For Determination Of Fees (docket no. 26) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $1,770.00 and expenses in the amount of $160.88.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Rule 56(b) Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 13) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 81) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (docket no. 1) is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant GFT's motion for summary judgment on the federal claims and remand this case for all further proceedings regarding the state or potential state law claims.”
“This Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, including pending motions.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Evink's motions.”
“Because Evink's motion was filed 21 months after the Court entered judgment, it is untimely. For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Evink's motions.”
“The Court will deny all of these motions.”
“the Court concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted because the materials that the parties presented are sufficient to allow the Court to determine a reasonable fee award.”
“the Court will grant Montgomery's motion for attorney's fees and costs in part and award her $6,417 in attorney's fees and $350 in costs.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief (ECF No. 37) and motion to stay the proceedings (ECF No. 43) are DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
His sampled dockets (2015, 2019, and his final 2022 filings) show the broad general civil and criminal docket typical of a longtime Michigan district judge: a heavy share of prisoner civil-rights and state/federal habeas corpus cases (often referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation), Social Security disability appeals, ERISA and consumer cases, and a criminal caseload including firearm and drug offenses. A 2022 cohort of habeas petitions was reassigned away from him within about a week of the initial assignment, consistent with his winding down before formally moving to inactive status on January 1, 2023.
A historical record
Judge Quist 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.