Nannette A. Baker
Judge Baker no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Baker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the sampled Social Security appeals, remands most often turn on the residual-functional-capacity determination -- an ALJ finding that does not fully account for medical opinion evidence in the record, particularly when that opinion arrives late (through the Appeals Council) and the ALJ's decision does not address it.
“Dr. Walsh's Disability Impairment Questionnaire form undermines the ALJ's decision. Dr. Walsh's opinion questionnaire was completed in June 2017, during the relevant time period and the opinion is material, as no other treating provider has provided any opinion on Burnett's functional capacity.”
A due-process argument can succeed even without a per se procedural violation: reassigning a Social Security case to a second ALJ after hearings is not itself error, but if the second ALJ's non-favorable decision turns on a credibility finding made without hearing the claimant testify, the claimant can show prejudice sufficient to require remand.
“The Court emphasizes that there was no error in the act of reassigning Renshaw's claim... As described above, however, Renshaw was prejudiced because the credibility findings provided were the focus of the ALJ's ultimate finding that Renshaw was not disabled.”
Procedural preferences
Where the Commissioner's own brief concedes error and moves to reverse and remand, or represents that the hearing record cannot be certified, the motion is granted promptly and without extended merits analysis.
“The Commissioner represents in her motion that after careful review of the case, ‘agency counsel determined that remand was necessary for further evaluation of Plaintiff's claims.’”
A post-judgment Rule 60(b) motion that merely re-argues a habeas claim already decided on the merits is treated as an unauthorized second-or-successive petition and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, not addressed on the merits again.
“Delatejera's Rule 60(b)(1) motion is improper, because it seeks to re-argue claims that were previously presented in the habeas petition and dismissed on the merits.”
Cautions
A prisoner's constitutional claims over religion-based restrictions do not survive summary judgment on unsupported assertions of disparate treatment; the plaintiff must identify a specific comparator group and put forward evidence, not just argument, that it was treated differently.
“To survive summary judgment, [Sargent] must identify the characteristics of the class he claims to be similarly situated to and present some evidence that other groups within the class were not also restricted in similar ways. Sargent has failed to do so.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is affirmed, and plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's ‘Pro Se Rule 60(b)(1) Seeking Relief from the Final Judgment and Reopen Habeas Proceedings’ Motion is DENIED and DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive habeas motion. [Doc. 16.]”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. [Doc. 1.]”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. [Doc. 1.]”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief which Plaintiff seeks in his Complaint and Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. [Docs. 1, 24, 27.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision of May 18, 2015 is REVERSED and REMANDED to re-examine Plaintiff's credibility and obtain a mental consultative examination or medical expert testimony regarding Plaintiff's mental health impairments.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 39) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 28) is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot. (Doc. 55.)”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Docket No. 7) is DENIED AND DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state remedies and for untimeliness.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion to Reverse and Remand (Doc. 23) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion to Reverse and Remand (Doc. 31) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion to Remand (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief requested in Plaintiff's Complaint and Brief in Support of Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Docs. 1, 22.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The analyzed sample focuses on Social Security appeals and a smaller selection of other matters. Baker's docket also included a substantial volume of habeas corpus petitions, prisoner civil-rights cases, forfeiture and miscellaneous criminal matters, and general consent civil cases (including a run of Monsanto Roundup product-liability cases) typical of a magistrate judge's referred-and-consent docket in a busy district. Many of those cases resolve by dismissal, settlement, or a non-dispositive order without a written dispositive-motion ruling, and the broader docket was not surveyed exhaustively.
A historical record
Judge Baker 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.