Rodney H. Holmes
How Judge Holmes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On Miranda/custody for non-arrest investigative encounters, Holmes applies the Eighth Circuit's six-factor Sanchez/Griffin test mechanically and will deny suppression where the encounter was voluntary, the suspect chose the location and was told he was not under arrest, and he left freely. A suppression motion premised on an un-Mirandized but plainly non-custodial meeting is a weak posture before him.
“All six factors weigh in favor of Ransom not being in custody. ... No evidence suggests that a custodial interrogation took place or that agents had any obligation to read Ransom Miranda rights.”
Holmes resolves recurring constitutional challenges to the supervised-release statute (18 U.S.C. 3583) and SORNA by treating them as foreclosed by Eighth Circuit precedent rather than re-litigating them; he reads Haymond narrowly (limited to 3583(k)). Arguments already rejected by the circuit will be denied as without merit.
“Mr. Simpson's argument is without merit. Here Mr. Simpson does not face a mandatory minimum sentence, nor has he been sentenced under 3583(k). The Eighth Circuit has denied this argument in multiple cases.”
Procedural preferences
On a consent-jurisdiction civil docket, Holmes will preserve a pro se plaintiff's viable core claim (here APA review of an agency decision) while dismissing jurisdictionally barred theories (Tucker Act) and misjoined/improper defendants, construing an inartful pro se pleading liberally.
“Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is not the model of a clear legal pleading, which is often the case when a plaintiff proceeds pro se. ... the Court construes Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint to bring a claim for judicial review of an agency decision pursuant to the APA.”
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 = 3 |
Granted in part: 1Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motion to compel discovery N = 2 |
Denied: 1Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to suppress 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.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as detailed above. [ECF No. 34.]”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Kenneth Robert Simpson's Motion to Dismiss the Petition to Revoke his Supervised Release (ECF No. 226); be DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendant Kenneth Robert Simpson's Motion to Strike Prior Conviction (ECF No. 224); and Motion to Dismiss for Selective Prosecution (ECF No. 233) be DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendant Kenneth Robert Simpson's Motion to Strike Prior Conviction (ECF No. 224); and Motion to Dismiss for Selective Prosecution (ECF No. 233) be DENIED.”
“Therefore, the Court overrules Ransom's objections, adopts the magistrate judge's conclusion, and denies Ransom's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements.”
“Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge's conclusion and denies Ransom's Motion to Produce Early Jencks Act Material.”
“Additionally, the Court denies Ransom's [71] Motion to Produce the Identity of the Confidential Source as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 245 days (N = 1).
Not systematically enumerated; magistrate commissioned 2023-02. Holmes-assigned dockets observed span a consent-jurisdiction civil APA case (Alexander v. Dept of the Army), a consent TCPA case (Samuels v. Dunklau Pharmacy Holdings, pending), and routine magistrate-duty criminal matters (mj sealed complaints, mc civil forfeiture such as US v. ARMSCOR handgun). His heavier criminal footprint is as the 636(b) referral magistrate issuing R&Rs on suppression/dismissal motions in cases assigned to the district judges (Clark, Sippel, Ross, etc.), captured in the reasoning layer rather than as Holmes-assigned dockets.