Sarah Elizabeth Martin Pitlyk

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Appointed by Donald Trump (Republican) 10 signed orders read

How Judge Pitlyk decides

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

What persuades

Treats Second Amendment challenges to the felon-in-possession statute (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) as foreclosed in the Eighth Circuit; both facial and as-applied attacks fail under controlling precedent. Do not expect a § 922(g)(1) motion to dismiss to succeed here.

“As conceded by defense counsel and explained by Judge Cohen, Defendant’s argument is foreclosed by the Eighth Circuit’s holding in United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024)”

Procedural preferences

In a case removed on diversity, scrutinizes any post-removal amendment that would add a nondiverse defendant, applying the Bailey/§1447(e) factors; will deny joinder of a non-indispensable party rather than destroy jurisdiction.

“in a case previously removed on the basis of diversity, the Court must scrutinize a plaintiff’s proposed amendment that joins a new, nondiverse defendant.”

Enforces the PLRA three-strikes bar strictly: the imminent-danger exception turns on danger existing at the moment of filing, with specific facts and a nexus to the claims — past danger will not reopen IFP.

“the imminent danger of serious physical injury “must exist at the time the complaint or the appeal is filed, not when the alleged wrongdoing occurred.””

Cautions

A motion for reconsideration is narrow — to correct manifest error or present newly discovered evidence — not a chance to reargue the merits. Repeating an argument is itself a ground to deny.

“A motion for reconsideration “is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits.””

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.

Summary judgment
N = 3
Granted in part: 2Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to dismiss
N = 2
Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to proceed ifp
N = 2
Granted: 1Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to suppress
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to sever
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for voluntary dismissal
N = 1
Moot / procedural: 1 counts only
Motion for leave to amend
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Judgment on the pleadings
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motion for reconsideration
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to compel
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to strike
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.

United States v. Melinda Ralph
4:24-cr-00672-SEP · 2026-05-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment, Doc. [61], is DENIED.”

United States v. Demorion Little
4:21-cr-00262-SEP · 2022-12-30
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Custodial Statements (Doc. [70]) is DENIED.”

Motion to sever (defendant) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Sever Counts I, IV, V, VI, and VII from Counts II and III (Doc. [71]) is DENIED.”

Michael Aaron Dutcher v. Anne Precythe
4:23-cv-01553-SEP · 2024-11-15
Motion to proceed ifp (plaintiff (pro se prisoner)) Denied

“the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and will deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion of Involuntary Dismissal.”

Motion for voluntary dismissal (plaintiff (pro se prisoner)) Moot / procedural

“the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and will deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion of Involuntary Dismissal.”

Darlene Starks v. The Standard Fire Insurance Company
4:22-cv-00752-SEP · 2022-11-23
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file an amended complaint. Docs. [23], [25]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motions.”

Power Investments, LLC v. Cardinals Preferred, LLC
4:21-cv-01022-SEP · 2023-02-22
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court denies Power’s motion for summary judgment, grants in part and denies in part Cardinals’ motion for summary judgment, and denies the joint motions for leave to file under seal.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court denies Power’s motion for summary judgment, grants in part and denies in part Cardinals’ motion for summary judgment, and denies the joint motions for leave to file under seal.”

Rehkemper & Sons, Inc. v. Mid-Rivers Development and Construction, LLC
4:21-cv-00380-SEP · 2023-01-31
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.”

Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. City of Richmond Heights
4:20-cv-01587-SEP · 2023-03-16
Judgment on the pleadings (plaintiff) Granted

“the Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration and grants the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”

Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Denied

“the Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration and grants the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”

Nidec Motor Corporation v. Broad Ocean Motor, LLC
4:13-cv-01895-SEP · 2022-09-27
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Compel, the Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply, and the Motion to Strike are denied.”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Compel, the Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply, and the Motion to Strike are denied.”

Terry Freeman and Andrew Trout v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
4:19-cv-02550-SEP · 2020-11-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“This matter is before the Court on Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc’s (“Toyota”) Motion to Dismiss. Doc. [17]. The motion is fully briefed. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.”

James Lam, III v. VitalCore Health Strategies
4:24-cv-01282-SEP · 2025-07-07
Motion to proceed ifp (plaintiff (pro se)) Granted

“On review of the application and financial information provided therein, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and waives the filing fee in this matter.”