Wilhelmina Marie Wright
How Judge Wright rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Wright no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Wright
Wilhelmina Marie Wright served as a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Wright received a commission on February 18, 2016. She retired from the bench on February 15, 2024, and holds inactive senior status.
How Judge Wright decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, Wright denied dismissal under Minn. Stat. § 145.682 because the defendants had not made the demand for an expert-review affidavit required to start Martinez's 60-day response period.
“Because Defendants have not made the prerequisite demand for an affidavit of expert review, Martinez's 60-day period to provide an affidavit of expert review has not begun. Accordingly, dismissal based on a failure to comply with Minnesota Statutes Section 145.682 is not warranted.”
In Dutton v. St. Louis County, Wright granted summary judgment to a jail nurse on a deliberate-indifference claim. Even assuming a serious medical need, the record did not show that the nurse knew of and deliberately disregarded it; negligence or disagreement with treatment did not establish a constitutional violation.
“even when viewed in the light most favorable to Dutton, his allegations are legally insufficient to avoid summary judgment. The record reflects that Nurse Martinson's treatment of Dutton was consistent with her duty of care and with St. Louis County Jail's procedures. ... without more, neither a healthcare provider's negligence, nor a patient's disagreement with treatment decisions rises to a constitutional violation.”
Procedural preferences
In Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, she rejected part of an unobjected magistrate judge recommendation and denied dismissal because the defendants had not made the demand required to start the plaintiff's statutory deadline for an expert-review affidavit.
“The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 37), is REJECTED to the extent that it recommends dismissal of this case without prejudice, and MODIFIED as outlined herein.”
In Taaffe, the court held that a federal union steward could not bypass the labor statute’s administrative process by pleading the same dispute as disability discrimination.
“he cannot bypass the CSRA’s exclusive procedures merely by alleging an ADA violation based on the same facts.”
Cautions
In Gregg v. Basile, Wright adopted the recommendation to dismiss because the claims arose from the same factual nucleus as an earlier suit dismissed with prejudice. She held this suit barred by res judicata and dismissed it with prejudice.
“This litigation is therefore barred by the doctrine of res judicata. A dismissal on the basis of res judicata is typically effected with prejudice ... This matter will therefore be dismissed with prejudice.”
In Sorcan, the court treated a school board censure and removal from committee assignments as protected legislative acts, dismissing the member’s First Amendment suit with prejudice without reaching the pleading sufficiency question.
“Because Bill Addy and the Independent School District No. 2909, Rock Ridge, are legislatively immune, the Court need not determine whether Sorcan sufficiently pled a First Amendment claim.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 20), is DENIED.”
“Defendant Daniel Basile's motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 29), is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, (Dkt. 50), is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order, (Dkt. 42), is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant Nurse Elizabeth Martinson's motion for partial summary judgment as to Count 1 of Dutton's complaint, (Dkt. 54), is GRANTED.”
“Defendant BNSF Railway Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, (Dkt. 59), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth herein.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 52), is DENIED.”
“Defendant Laborers’ International Union of North America’s motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 22), is DENIED.”
“Octaform’s motion to dismiss Civil Ag Group’s complaint pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, (Dkt. 6), is DENIED.”
“Defendant The United States Olympic Committee’s motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 18)', is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff HSK, LLC d/b/a Zerorez MN’s motion for an extension of time, (Dkt. 34), is GRANTED; and”
“Defendant The United States Olympic Committee’s motion to strike, (Dkt. 26), is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“ConA-gra’s motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 30), is DENIED.”
“Defendant Aimia Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, (Dkt. 19), is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 12), is GRANTED. 2. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 84.5 days (N = 20).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 256.5 days (N = 2).
- Read off case-level docket records for 20 enumerated Wright dockets.
- Wright's docket skews heavily to federal-prisoner 28 U.S.C. 2255 motions to vacate (many '<name> v. United States': Gonzalez-Perez, Spencer, Lee, Mayweather, Garcia, Neal-Hill, Klinghagen), immigration mandamus/APA delay suits (El Valli v. Blinken, Biermaier v. Jaddou, Rikprashad v. Mayorkas, Garrido v. Zuchowski, Mohamed v. Tritten), FCRA/consumer-credit (Castillo & Gutierrez v. Equifax, Williams v. Petal Card, Ward v. Portfolio Recovery), ERISA benefits (Novins v. First Reliance, Bradford v. Liberty Life), mortgage/foreclosure (Cormier v. US Bank, Skramsted v. Bank of America), employment (Yehdego v. SDH, Alkabbari v. UPS Freight), habeas (Barsness v. Dooley, Bjerknes v. United States), an SEC enforcement action (SEC v. Hengen), and criminal matters (US v. Mayer, US v. Lussier).
- Many terminate quickly (median 84.5 days), consistent with summary 2255/mandamus dispositions.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Wright was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2023.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Wright no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.