Brian C. Wimes
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.”
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 = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Habeas petition 2254 N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Certificate of appealability 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.
“ORDERED Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. #10) is GRANTED and the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“ORDERED Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #15) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”
“this case is dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and (2)”
“a certificate of appealability is denied.”