Audrey G. Fleissig
How Judge Fleissig rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Fleissig decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Under Rule 56(d) she will defer a qualified-immunity summary-judgment motion and grant the nonmovant a limited period of discovery when specific essential facts (e.g., what the officer could see, whether presence was announced) cannot yet be presented, denying the SJ motion without prejudice to refile.
“Upon careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the authorities cited therein, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing to warrant at least a limited time for additional discovery under Rule 56(d).”
Procedural preferences
She will not grant a Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal without prejudice where the plaintiff offers no (or an insufficient) explanation and a summary-judgment motion is pending, treating it as an attempt to escape an adverse decision; she leaves the door open to dismissal WITH prejudice.
“given the history of the litigation and the fact that Plaintiff has not presented any explanation - much less a sufficient explanation - for its desire to dismiss the case, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion for dismissal without prejudice should be denied.”
A motion to reconsider (Rule 54(b)) is not a vehicle to raise facts or legal arguments that could have been raised earlier; she grants reconsideration only for manifest error or new evidence (though a genuinely jurisdictional issue like Article III standing may be entertained any time).
“A motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b), however, may not serve as a vehicle to identify facts or raise legal arguments which could have been, but were not, raised or adduced during the pendency of the motion of which reconsideration was sought.”
Cautions
Pro se status does not excuse non-compliance with the rules: financial hardship and absence did not establish excusable neglect for a years-long failure to serve defendants.
“Nor does Plaintiff’s pro se status excuse his failure to serve the Defendants who were dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve them.”
Filing restrictions are enforced only when a formal pre-filing injunction has actually been entered; a mere notice of intent to restrict, or a vacated order, will not support Rule 11 sanctions for filing suit.
“upon careful review, the Court concludes that there exists no formal order barring Plaintiff from filing lawsuits in this district.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Harriman Oil Co.’s motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice is DENIED. (Doc. No. 58.) Plaintiff remains free to move for dismissal of the case with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Charles Ryan Glover’s motion (ECF No. 50) for reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated December 8, 2016, is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within seven (7) days of this Order.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis’ motion for sanctions is DENIED. ECF No. 22.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Charles Pointer’s pro se motion to ‘stop Defendant from using the [en banc] order to impose sanctions against him’ is DENIED AS MOOT. ECF No. 19.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment Creditor SMS Financial P, LLC’s Motion for Revival of Judgment is GRANTED. Doc. No. 53.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deny or Defer Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and to Allow Discovery is GRANTED in part, as set forth above. ECF No. 67.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice. ECF No. 62.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and Request for Form is GRANTED. ECF No. 21. Petitioner’s notice of appeal shall be due no later than June 18, 2025.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to strike [ECF No. 8] is GRANTED, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 7] is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint is GRANTED. ECF No. 32.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED and the filing fee waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 3] is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions [ECF Nos. 22 & 23] are DENIED.”
“The government has met its burden to establish that it is entitled to forfeiture of the Subject Property listed in its Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture. (Doc. No. 158). The government is also entitled to a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $12,922,648.25.”
Draft for Judge Fleissig with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Fleissig, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Fleissig's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace