Brian C. Wimes

United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 19 signed orders read

How Judge Wimes decides

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

What persuades

On a Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdiction challenge he requires more than a bare invocation of federal statutes: 'mere citations to federal statutes' do not create federal-question jurisdiction, and a plaintiff facing a factual challenge must prove subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance. Pro se filings are read under 'less stringent standards' but that liberality does not supply a missing jurisdictional basis.

“Mere citations to federal statutes however are insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.”

On a motion to dismiss an indictment for failure to state an offense, he confines review to the face of the indictment and will not entertain a pretrial sufficiency-of-the-evidence preview; an indictment that tracks the statutory language is generally sufficient. To win dismissal, attack the indictment's facial elements, not what the trial proof will show.

“when reviewing a motion to dismiss based on an indictment’s sufficiency, a court is limited to the face of the indictment and may not consider arguments related to sufficiency of the evidence.”

Procedural preferences

He adopts Magistrate Judge Reports & Recommendations after an independent review of the record and applicable law, even over filed objections, where the objections do not undermine the R&R's reasoning — preserve issues by objecting on the merits within the 14-day window, but expect de novo-style independent review rather than a rubber stamp.

“The Court, after an independent review of the record and the applicable law, adopts the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation.”

Cautions

He enforces the AEDPA one-year habeas limitations period strictly: a petitioner's miscalculation of the deadline is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' justifying equitable tolling, and forgoing review in the state's highest court forecloses reliance on the 90-day certiorari window. Calculate § 2244(d) timeliness precisely.

“Petitioner’s miscalculation of the limitations period does not constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ for purposes of equitable tolling.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

His Word Is Truth Trust, et al. v. Jody Paschal, et al.
2:22-cv-04099-BCW · 2022-08-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. #10) is GRANTED and the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

United States v. Carlos Rosas
4:24-cr-00183-BCW-1 · 2025-05-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #15) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”

Travis D. Mack v. Ian Wallace
6:16-cv-00006-BCW-P · 2016-05-24
Habeas petition 2254 (petitioner) Denied

“this case is dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and (2)”

Certificate of appealability (petitioner) Denied

“a certificate of appealability is denied.”

Northland Management & Construction, LLC v. City of Parkville
5:24-cv-06005 · 2025-01-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“ORDERED Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. #96) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Summary judgment is GRANTED on Counts II and IV to the extent it is a Federal Inverse Condemnation Claim, and DENIED on Counts I, III, IV to the extent it is a Missouri Inverse Condemnation Claim, and Count V.”

United States v. State of Missouri
2:22-cv-04022 · 2023-03-06
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDERED the United States’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. #8) is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. #13 & #15) are DENIED.”

Harvel v. Shadow Creek, LLC
4:14-cv-01045 · 2015-01-14
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Suggestions in Support (Doc. #7) is DENIED.”

LNV Corporation v. Robb
4:11-cv-00842 · 2013-03-27
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #41) is GRANTED.”

Young v. Waynesville R-VI School District
6:12-cv-03443 · 2013-01-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Claims Against All Defendants, or in the Alternative, Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss All Claims Against All Individual Defendants (Doc. #11) is GRANTED.”

Motion to appoint counsel (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“ORDERED Plaintiff’s Application for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #22) is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Mo-Kan Teamsters Pension Fund v. Motex Construction, LLC
4:12-cv-00551 · 2012-09-18
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment by Default by the Court (Doc. #6) is GRANTED.”

Petree v. Missouri Department of Corrections
2:24-cv-04218 · 2025-08-11
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion for default (Doc. #12) is GRANTED against Defendant Fitzgerald and DENIED against all other Defendants for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendations.”

Motion for extension of time (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED that DOC Defendants motion for extension of time to file an answer is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendations.”

Construction Industry Laborers Pension Fund v. Spalding Constructors, LLC
4:23-cv-00219 · 2025-04-15
Motion for contempt (plaintiff) Granted in part

“ORDERED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #41), Plaintiffs’ motion for civil contempt (Doc. #27) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”

Hanesbrand, Inc. v. Seduzione Leggs, LLC
4:11-cv-00569 · 2012-11-28
Motion to lift stay (plaintiff) Granted in part

“ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay and for Additional Relief (Doc. #40) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Motion to appoint counsel (defendant) Granted in part

“ORDERED Defendants’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #42) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Put Judge Wimes's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Wimes actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Wimes's own signed orders and cites them.