Mary Ann L. Medler
Judge Medler no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Medler decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On habeas timeliness, her analysis credits a petitioner's demonstrated capacity to litigate (lengthy pro se filings, ability to register complaints) as evidence against an equitable-tolling claim based on mental-health limitations, rather than accepting the claim at face value.
“Petitioner's alleged mental disorders and/or impairments have not prevented him for filing, among other legal documents, a twelve page typed pro se habeas petition with the State Circuit Court ... a fifty-six page typed pro se habeas petition with the Missouri appellate court ... and two pro se Sec. 2254 Petitions.”
In Social Security appeals, when the ALJ's decision does not adequately address a claimant's full set of severe and non-severe impairments, or key work-related limitations, she remands rather than affirms, even in a mixed disposition.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief which Plaintiff seeks in her Brief in Support of Complaint is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part ... a Judgment of Reversal and Remand will issue contemporaneously herewith remanding this case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further consideration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), sentence 4.”
Procedural preferences
On a jurisdictional motion to dismiss under the Federal Tort Claims Act, she draws a clear line between operational-level safety decisions (not shielded) and policy-grounded discretionary judgments (shielded), rather than accepting a broad characterization of any discretion as policy-based.
“the discretion at issue in the matter under consideration, facilitating the Society's tour and choosing a location for the Society to observe aircraft, did not itself entail policy considerations, nor is the discretion at issue susceptible to a policy analysis ... [it] is correctly characterized at the operational level.”
Cautions
An employee seeking to intervene personally in a union's exclusive grievance-arbitration process, or to bring independent counsel into it, faces a high bar absent a specific showing that the union breached its duty of fair representation.
“Plaintiff does not allege that the NALC, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Postal Service's employees, breached its duty of fair representation nor has Plaintiff articulated a 'specific need' for his attorney to participate in the grievance-arbitration procedure.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody be DISMISSED, in its entirety.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Petition filed by Petitioner for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 be DENIED; Doc. 1.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Emilio Saenz's Motion to Suppress, [Doc. 35] ... are denied.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that ... defendant Melissa Saenz's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements, [Doc. No. 43] are denied.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant is DENIED; Doc. 13”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant John E. Potter is GRANTED; [Doc. 9] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by the NALC is GRANTED; [Doc. 20]”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled cohort is entirely consent Social Security disability appeals under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), filed 2004-2007 and terminated 2005-2009. Her broader docket, visible in the case-level enumeration but not yet mined for outcomes, also includes federal habeas petitions, prisoner civil-rights cases, a Federal Tort Claims Act wrongful-death suit, an ERISA benefit-fund collection action, and a trademark dispute.
A historical record
Judge Medler no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.