Maarten Vermaat
How Judge Vermaat decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In prisoner exhaustion disputes, Vermaat looks past a bare failure to file a grievance and asks whether prison staff actually made the grievance process unavailable through intimidation; a plaintiff's own sworn account of threats can be enough to defeat summary judgment.
“Plaintiff's affidavit in support of his civil complaint sets forth facts that are sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were actually available to him.”
In Social Security appeals, he will reverse where the ALJ's decision does not grapple with a supporting medical opinion at all, rather than merely finding it unpersuasive.
“the ALJ failed to address whether Plaintiff met Listing 2.03A during the period when she was not engaging in SGA. The decision lacks any analysis addressing this issue.”
Procedural preferences
He enforces case-management deadlines strictly: a discovery motion filed after the court's own cutoff is denied as untimely without reaching the merits, even where the underlying summary-judgment motion is otherwise ready for decision.
“To the extent that ECF No. 28 is a motion for an order compelling discovery, the Court denies the motion as untimely.”
For unrepresented Social Security claimants, he holds the ALJ to a heightened duty to develop the record, particularly where the claimant's judgment or insight into a mental illness is itself part of the disability claim.
“The development of the record was especially crucial in this case because of the fact that Ward was under court petition for mental health treatment at the time of the hearing.”
Cautions
He will recommend dismissing a plaintiff's own claim as a discovery sanction when the plaintiff defies a court order to cooperate (here, refusing to sign a medical-records release), even without a separate showing of bad faith beyond the refusal itself.
“Anderson's actions display 'an intent to thwart judicial proceedings [and] a reckless disregard for the effect of [his] conduct on those proceedings.'”
Repeated, overlapping motions seeking the same relief under different labels (here, four separate filings all asking for a prison transfer) are read together and denied together rather than considered as independently persuasive.
“The Court construes Plaintiff's motions as requests for injunctive relief.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is recommended that the Court grant Defendant Nusraty's motion to dismiss and dismiss him from this case.”
“The undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court grant Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Anderson from this case.”
“the Court will grant that motion to the extent that it will issue a revised order granting in forma pauperis status and omitting the directive that the initial partial filing fee be paid within twenty-eight (28) days.”
“the undersigned respectfully recommends that this Court deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment due to Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Tippins's motions.”
“the undersigned respectfully recommends that Tippins's Rule 56(d) motion be denied.”
“Tippins's motion should be denied for several reasons.”
“It is respectfully recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment.”
“it is recommended that the Court deny Adams's request for a TRO.”
“it is recommended that the Court deny Mitchell's motions (ECF Nos. 33, 35, 37, and 39) for orders and/or an injunction to transfer him to different prison.”
“it is respectfully recommended that Court reverse the ALJ's decision and remand this matter to the Commissioner for consideration because substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's decision.”
“the undersigned recommends that the Court affirm the ALJ's decision.”
A prisoner grievance-interference suit against the Michigan Department of Corrections, decided directly by Vermaat under the parties' consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. He dismissed the complaint at preliminary screening on Eleventh Amendment immunity and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds.
“it is recommended that the Court deny as moot Plaintiff's motions ... and for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
His directly-assigned docket is dominated by prisoner Section 1983 cases and state habeas petitions proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) consent, plus a smaller Social Security appeal docket assigned directly to him. Most of the terminated prisoner cases sampled ended in a PLRA screening dismissal within weeks to a few months of filing, with no party motion practice to ground; this understates his direct-decision caseload relative to the much larger prisoner civil-rights referral lane reflected in the published-opinion set above.
Put Judge Vermaat's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Vermaat actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Vermaat's own signed orders and cites them.