Gary August Fenner
How Judge Fenner decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Decides threshold jurisdiction first and will dismiss an entire case under Rooker-Feldman where the claims are 'inextricably intertwined' with a state-court judgment. Do not bring a suit before him that, in substance, asks a federal district court to review or undo a state-court decision.
“Plaintiffs are attempting to appeal the decision of the Circuit Court of Ozark County, Missouri, to this Court in contravention of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”
Procedural preferences
Reads removal mechanics strictly to the statute: a notice of removal must be FILED with the district court within 30 days under 28 U.S.C. 1446; a clerical error in the parallel state-court filing that causes no prejudice does not warrant remand. Frame removal/remand arguments around prejudice and the statutory text, not technical defects.
“§ 1446 does not state that removal must be effected within 30 days; it states that the defendant must file a notice of removal with the district court within 30 days.”
Will deny summary judgment where genuine fact issues remain on causation, viewing all facts for the non-movant; and in a putative class action he will rule on SJ before certification only where the ground is equally applicable to all class members, declining to let a single plaintiff's weak individual facts dispose of the class. A movant should not rely on the named plaintiff's situation alone.
“Genuine factual issues remain regarding whether NBL caused or significantly contributed to injuries sustained by potential class members after March 9, 2009.”
Enforces post-conviction / collateral-attack waivers in plea agreements and dismisses 2255 motions that fall within a knowing and voluntary waiver, absent an illegal-sentence or manifest-injustice exception; a later change in the law does not reopen the waiver.
““a voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in light of the then applicable law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise.””
Cautions
Faults non-movants whose opposition rests on lone, unsupported, or conclusory statements; such assertions will not create a genuine fact dispute at summary judgment. Support each contested fact with record evidence.
“This lone, unsupported statement represents Defendants’ only argument that this factor weighs in their favor.”
Gives pro se filings liberal construction but still requires specific supporting facts; bare or conclusory allegations are subject to summary dismissal.
“Even a pro se movant must identify facts that support his claims of error.”
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: 2Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to remand N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for sanctions N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to vacate sentence 2255 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.
“For these reasons, and those set forth above, HP’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“Mr. and Ms. Heidi’s and Ms. Rooney-McBride’s Motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED and Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED and Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“the Defendants’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Carrillo’s motion seeking § 2255 relief is denied without an evidentiary hearing and without issuance of a certificate of appealability.”
“NBL’s Motion is accordingly DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”