Stephen Robert Clark Sr.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Appointed by Donald Trump (Republican) 9 signed orders read

How Judge Sr. decides

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

What persuades

On summary judgment, decides on the admissible record and disregards unsupported, self-serving, or opinion testimony. Build the opposition on specific, supported facts, not characterizations.

“Self-serving, conclusory statements without support are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.”

In employment cases, gives weight to the 'same-actor' inference and replacement-within-the-protected-class as evidence that the protected trait did not drive the adverse action.

“the record reflects that Hembrador performed below average, PruGen replaced her with a woman, the same individual hired and fired her, and no evidence suggests that Pinto’s decision to terminate Hembrador stemmed from or was influenced by discriminatory animus.”

Procedural preferences

Polices subject-matter jurisdiction on his own motion. Once all federal claims drop out of a removed case, expect a sua sponte remand and a refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law remnants.

“All federal questions have been dismissed from this case, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the Court remands this matter to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County.”

Resolves doubts about removal jurisdiction in favor of remand and will sua sponte remand where the well-pleaded petition presents no federal question, even if the removing defendant characterized it as a federal claim.

“Because the petition fails to present a federal question, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and, on that basis, sua sponte remands this case back to the Circuit Court of Franklin County.”

Cautions

Do not raise a new claim or theory for the first time at summary judgment; the proper route is a Rule 15(a) motion to amend. A claim debuting in an opposition brief will be disregarded.

“A party cannot raise a new claim at the summary judgment stage.”

Allegations and relief must appear in the operative complaint/petition itself; arguments first raised in later motions or briefs will not be treated as amending the pleading.

“statements raised for the first time in motions or briefs cannot amend those in petitions.”

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 stay
N = 2
Denied: 1Moot / procedural: 1 counts only
Motions to dismiss
N = 2
Granted: 1Denied: 1 counts only
Summary judgment
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motion to appoint special master
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to remand
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for voluntary dismissal
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motion for attorney fees
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.

Ivy Hembrador v. PruGen, LLC
4:19-cv-03203-SRC · 2021-03-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“In sum, the Court grants [44] Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts.”

Vance Roy Clark v. Doris Falkenrath
4:23-cv-01284-SRC · 2023-11-07
Motion to appoint special master (petitioner (pro se)) Denied

“Accordingly, the Court denies Clark’s [5] motion for appointment of special master.”

SM-T.E.H. Realty 1, LLC v. City of Bel Ridge
4:19-cv-01712-SRC · 2020-02-25
Motions to stay (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Stay of Court Proceedings [43] is DENIED as moot.”

Carla Been v. Edgewell Personal Care Company
4:19-cv-02602-SRC · 2020-03-31
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Carla Been’s Motion to Remand [25]. The Court denies the Motion.”

Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co. v. Evangelical Free Church of America (Zurich)
4:21-cv-00086-SRC · 2022-01-31
Motion for voluntary dismissal (plaintiff) Granted

“While the logic of the rule in Smoot compels dismissal of the case, even applying the test set out in SnugglyCat, the Court concludes that it should grant Brotherhood’s motion.”

Dontez Handy v. United States
4:23-cv-01097-SRC · 2023-12-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant (United States / respondent)) Granted

“For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes 28 U.S.C. § 2255 times bar this case and grants the United States’s motion to dismiss.”

United States v. John L. Hampton, II
4:25-cr-00232-SRC-RHH · 2025-08-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant (pro se)) Denied

“Accordingly, the Court sustains, adopts, and incorporates Judge Holmes’s [39] Report and Recommendation and denies Hampton’s [24] Motion to Dismiss.”

United States v. Arronda Williams
4:20-cv-01271-SRC · 2021-04-09
Motions to stay (defendant) Denied

“This matter comes before the Court on [21] Defendant Arronda Williams’s Motion to Stay Proceedings, to Stay Discovery, and for a Protective Order. The Court denies the motion.”

Sean Wayne Null and Erkios Systems, Inc. v. Entrepreneur Startup Business Development (Arch Grants)
4:23-cv-00702-SRC · 2024-03-01
Motion for attorney fees (defendant) Denied

“Now, Defendants move the Court to award them attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting their Motion to Dismiss. See doc. 34. The Court denies their motion for fees without prejudice.”