Shannon G. Elkins
How Judge Elkins decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Elkins moves IFP/pro se cases along procedurally and will recommend Rule 41(b) failure-to-prosecute dismissal when a litigant ignores a court order -- e.g. failing to pay an initial filing fee within the 21 days she sets, or failing to provide a required status update. She gives explicit warning in the underlying order that non-compliance will trigger a dismissal recommendation. A pro se litigant before her should treat her deadlines and fee orders as hard.
“The order advised Franklin that if he did not pay the initial filing fee within 21 days, Magistrate Judge Elkins would recommend that his case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. ... To date, Franklin has not paid the initial filing fee ... the R&R recommends dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).”
On a 2241 habeas petition she applies Article III mootness rigorously: once the BOP grants the relief sought (transfer to an RRC), she works through each recognized mootness exception (collateral consequences; capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review; voluntary cessation; class action) and dismisses when none applies, rather than reaching the merits. A petitioner whose requested relief is granted mid-case should expect a moot dismissal absent a live collateral consequence.
“Mr. Dusek's petition is moot because he has received the relief sought and does not qualify for an exception to mootness.”
Cautions
On 1915(e) screening of pro se prisoner 1983 claims, Elkins applies the Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination bar: a damages claim that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a still-standing state conviction (here, after a guilty plea with no appeal) is dismissed without prejudice. A plaintiff must first get the conviction reversed, expunged, or invalidated before suing for damages tied to it.
“It is clear from the Amended Complaint that any successful damages claim Mr. Spottswood asserts here would necessarily undermine his state-court conviction. ... Heck therefore bars the remaining claims in this action. The Court thus recommends dismissing this matter without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).”
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.
| Habeas petition N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to expedite N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Application to proceed ifp N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 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.
Her own Order & Report and Recommendation in an IFP (28 U.S.C. 1915) pro se action. Elkins lifted a prior stay and recommended dismissing the remaining 1983 damages claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, because the plaintiff had pleaded guilty in the underlying state criminal case and his conviction had not been favorably terminated; recommended dismissal without prejudice under 1915(e)(2)(B). A recommendation; a district-judge adoption order was not located/read this session. Signed 's/Shannon G. Elkins, United States Magistrate Judge'. Grounding quote: 'IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Amended Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).'
District Judge Donovan W. Frank's ORDER ADOPTING Elkins's April 8, 2025 R&R (no objections), which recommended dismissing the action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Adopted in full; not a party-motion ruling. R&R-to-adoption interval = 15 days. Grounding quote: 'Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins's April 8, 2025 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. [8]) is ADOPTED. ... This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.'
“Franklin's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot.”
“Mr. Dusek's petition is moot because he has received the relief sought and does not qualify for an exception to mootness. ... IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2241, Dkt. 1 ... be DENIED.”
“The Motion for Expedited Review and Consideration, Dkt. 5, be DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Read off case-level docket records. Elkins's docket-visible docket as a duty/referral magistrate is heavily CRIMINAL-DUTY (magistrate-judge numbers '0:26-mj-...': initial appearances/complaints e.g. US v. Cunningham, US v. Perkins, US v. Noriega-Garcia; multiple sealed 'In re: Search Warrant' matters; she also handled detention in the high-profile US v. Eichorn matter per press) plus a stream of SOCIAL SECURITY appeal referrals filed against the SSA Commissioner ('v. Bisignano': Byers, Clark, Rigg, S.A.A., Bell) and pro se prisoner/civil-rights screening (the R&R cases above). Consistent with a newly-appointed magistrate carrying the criminal duty rotation and a civil referral/screening load. Nature-of-suit fields were blank on these records; mix inferred from case captions and docket-number type (mj vs cv).