Joshua M. Divine
How Judge Divine decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On § 1915(e) screening of failure-to-protect claims, distinguishes deliberate indifference (which can proceed) from negligence/policy violations (which cannot). Officers told of a specific risk who do nothing can be sued; officers who merely failed to do rounds, or who acted on the information, cannot. Plead actual knowledge plus conscious disregard.
“violations of prison policy or regulations alone are not enough to establish deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment.”
Treats a controlling Eighth Circuit ruling on the same complaint as binding at the screening stage even where he signals doubt (e.g., on whether the risk was 'isolated' vs. pervasive). Cite favorable appellate language on your own pleadings.
“So at this early stage of frivolity review, the Court is bound by the Eighth Circuit’s conclusion about Mills’s complaint.”
Procedural preferences
On de novo review of a magistrate's R&R, will adopt the result but prune reasoning he finds 'premature and unnecessary' (here, declining to rule on a state statute's constitutionality and deciding on narrower, applicability grounds). Expect minimalist, avoid-the-constitutional-question rulings.
“That constitutional determination is both premature and unnecessary.”
Discovery motions filed before a case management order issues are premature and will be denied without prejudice; renew them only after discovery opens and per the presiding judge's standing orders. Defendants are reminded of their evidence-preservation duty.
“Mills’s motions are premature. The Court has not yet issued a case management order or authorized discovery in this case.”
Cautions
Enforces compliance with court orders and Local Rules even for pro se litigants: failing to file an ordered amended complaint, and filing leave-to-amend motions without attaching the proposed pleading (L.R. 4.07), leads to Rule 41(b) dismissal. Follow the form/order requirements.
“Ware’s self-represented status does not eliminate the obligation to follow court orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or this Court’s Local Rules.”
Supervisory and official-capacity § 1983 claims fail without specific, non-conclusory allegations of personal participation or a policy/custom; naming a director/warden 'responsible for subordinates' is not enough.
“Because Mills has alleged no factual content to support any allegations of a failure to train, the Court will dismiss his claims against defendants Precythe, Adams, Lewis, Freeman, Tandarich, and Wheeler.”
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.
| Motion to suppress N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to appoint counsel N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for discovery N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to appeal ifp N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to amend 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.
“The Court, having reviewed de novo the report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker, DENIES all pro se Defendant Roosevelt Easley’s motions addressed in that report as well as his subsequent motion to supplement the record.”
“The Court, having reviewed de novo the report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker, DENIES all pro se Defendant Roosevelt Easley’s motions addressed in that report as well as his subsequent motion to supplement the record.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mills’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED without prejudice. ECF 44.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mills’s motions seeking discovery are DENIED without prejudice. ECF 40, 41, 43, 48, and 49.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mills’s amended motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis are DENIED as moot. ECF 34 and 39.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 161 days (N = 3).
Not systematically enumerated. The analyzed dockets are pro se prisoner civil-rights matters (Mills v. Precythe/Berger, Ware v. MDOC); Divine's GovInfo record also includes a criminal case (Easley). Other Divine-assigned moed dockets observed but not analyzed: Aunhkhotep v. Ebberhart, Grant v. Hilton. His early docket skews heavily toward § 1915 prisoner screening and pro se procedural motions.