Ronnie Lee White

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 4 signed orders read

How Judge White decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

A clear statute-of-limitations / accrual bar controls and is not overcome by a litigant's strategic delay; he expects arguments to be supported by authority. Frame timeliness around the accrual date, with cited authority.

“The potential for delay based on the claimant's litigating decisions does not change the fact that a claim for return of property was available—and thus accrued—at the time of judgment.”

Procedural preferences

Holds the line between the pleading standard and the proof standard. A complaint cannot be amended by an opposition brief, and a defendant cannot import summary-judgment merits (e.g. similarly-situated comparator analysis) into a 12(b)(6) motion. Plead the elements; save proof for SJ.

“It is a basic principle that the complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss[.]”

Enforces Rule 56(d) strictly: a party resisting summary judgment for more discovery must specify what facts further discovery would reveal, not merely ask for delay.

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance Pursuant to Rule 56(d) is DENIED.”

Cautions

Pro se litigants receive liberal construction but he will not supply missing facts or build a legal theory for them; pleadings must still allege the facts the theory needs.

“we will not supply additional facts, nor will we construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been pleaded.”

Local-rule compliance is required even of pro se parties; repeated non-compliant or oversized filings draw an explicit warning that future filings will be stricken.

“Plaintiff must follow the applicable rules of this Court. In the future, the Court will strike Plaintiff's filings that do not comply with the Local Rules.”

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: 2Granted in part: 1 counts only
Summary judgment
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motion for continuance
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for scheduling order
N = 1
Moot / procedural: 1 counts only
Motion for relief from judgment
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.

Donald G. Young v. United States of America
4:22-cv-01273-RLW · 2023-09-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant (United States)) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States of America's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (ECF No. 8).”

Juan Arias Ramirez v. The Coca-Cola Company
4:22-cv-01077-RLW · 2023-09-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Coca-Cola Company of North America's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims of retaliation and racial harassment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. (ECF No. 27)”

Jamison Stiriling v. James Ramsey, et al.
4:17-cv-01206-RLW · 2018-07-19
Motions to dismiss (defendants (private parties)) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by Defendants John Ramsey; WMAC 2013, LLC; WMAC 2014, LLC; Richard Robinson; Carlton Black; Michael DeLuca; Chad Cooper; Invest Services, LLC; Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB; and Deed Co. LLC (ECF No. 72) is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (defendants (St. Louis County)) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants St. Louis County Collector of Revenue; Ashley Greely, employee of St. Louis County Department of Revenue; Richard Robinson, Manager of Revenue Services as an employee of St. Louis County Department of Revenue and Mark Devore, Collector of Revenue for St. Louis County Department of Revenue (ECF No. 69) is GRANTED.”

Motion for continuance (plaintiff (pro se)) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance Pursuant to Rule 56(d) is DENIED.”

Motion for scheduling order (plaintiff (pro se)) Moot / procedural

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Rule 16 Order (ECF No. 66) is DENIED as MOOT.”

JerMarsh Robinson v. State of Missouri
4:15-cv-01715-RLW · 2022-05-25
Motion for relief from judgment (plaintiff (pro se)) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's 'Motion for a Retrial' (ECF No. 20), construed as a motion under Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., is DENIED.”