Cristian M. Stevens
How Judge Stevens decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, will consider body-worn-camera or other video 'necessarily embraced by the pleadings' and will NOT accept the complaint's version of facts where video blatantly contradicts it. In an excessive-force case, build (or attack) the complaint against what the footage actually shows.
“This Court need not accept the plaintiff’s version of the facts if they are blatantly contradicted by video evidence.”
Analyzes deadly-force reasonableness strictly at the moment the officer decided to fire; what happened after the decision is irrelevant, and a reasonable (even mistaken) perception of a menacing action with an apparently loaded gun defeats the claim. Frame use-of-force theories around the split-second before the shot.
“the dispositive issue here is not what happened as Officer Simmerman opened fire or the instant after he opened fire, but what happened before he made the split-second decision to open fire.”
Procedural preferences
Treats qualified-immunity questions as something to resolve at the pleading stage, not after discovery; a plaintiff hoping to reach discovery should plead facts, not speculate that discovery will fill gaps.
“mere speculation that certain facts might be established through discovery—when those facts are not alleged or reasonably inferable from the pleadings—will not save a plaintiff’s complaint from a motion to dismiss.”
Enforces the local summary-judgment rules: a non-movant who fails to respond to a statement of material facts has those facts deemed admitted, which can be outcome-determinative. Always controvert the movant's SOF.
“Material facts not properly contested are accepted as true for purposes of summary judgment.”
Cautions
On post-judgment motions, holds Rule 59(e)/60(b) to their narrow purpose: they are not a vehicle to relitigate the merits or to raise arguments that could have been made before judgment. Bring genuinely new grounds or expect denial.
“Such motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments that could have been presented prior to judgment.”
Holds parties to trial dates they previously agreed to; having joined a continuance and proposed the March date, the defendant could not later accelerate it over the Government's objection. Do not agree to a schedule you may want to undo.
“the Court set the trial for the first date mutually agreed upon and proposed by the parties: Monday, March 30, 2026.”
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.
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to appoint counsel N = 2 |
Denied: 1Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to proceed ifp N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to reconsider N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to file out of time N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to compel N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to advance trial date N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the private Defendants’ motion is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to Count I and GRANTED as to Count II. Count II of Plaintiffs’ petition against Defendants KeenMac and SEMO Cardinal is DISMISSED.”
“This Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims.”
“Because the Court grants summary judgment to these defendants on all claims, this motion is DENIED as moot.”
“For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 3] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 12] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 14] is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Out of Time [ECF No. 15] is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Advance the Trial Date (Doc. 291), is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 243 days (N = 7).
Not separately enumerated this session (surname search_dockets returns party-named cases, not the judge's assigned docket). The 4 analyzed dockets span § 1983 prisoner/excessive-force civil rights (Holland wrongful-death, Tucker, Davidson) and a removed land-use condemnation dispute (Athena). Consistent with the GovInfo layer's observation that Stevens' early record skews toward civil-rights/§ 1983 matters.