David A. Sanders
How Judge Sanders decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security appeals, Sanders looks past a claimant's loosely-argued or hard-to-follow briefing and squarely addresses each discernible issue on its merits, affirming where the ALJ built a reasoned, evidence-supported chain from impairment to residual functional capacity to available work.
“Based on the foregoing, I find that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled for purposes of the subject application for benefits.”
He will reverse and remand when an ALJ arbitrarily walls off medical evidence solely because it predates the alleged onset or postdates the date last insured, rather than asking whether that evidence is actually probative of the claimant's condition during the relevant period.
“The Commissioner cannot arbitrarily ignore medical evidence predating the date of onset nor medical evidence outside the applicable time-period as “neither inherently valuable nor persuasive.” ... The question really comes down to whether -- as a matter of fact and logic -- the evidence is relevant to the question of disability or not.”
When dashcam or security-camera video squarely contradicts a plaintiff's account of a use-of-force incident, Sanders will view the facts in the light depicted by the video rather than accept the plaintiff's competing narrative, and will convert a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment once the parties' briefing relies on evidence outside the pleadings.
“the court view the facts “in the light depicted by the videotape.””
Procedural preferences
In his large consent Social Security docket, Sanders regularly hears oral argument before ruling, and will grant a straightforward, unopposed agency motion to remand promptly rather than requiring further briefing.
“On motion of Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration... the motion being unopposed, this Court hereby reverses the Commissioner's decision and remands Plaintiff's claim.”
In prisoner civil-rights suits he enforces the Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement claim-by-claim, dismissing individual unexhausted conditions claims at summary judgment while allowing properly exhausted claims to proceed to their own resolution.
“Five claims dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Remaining claims will be addressed in separate order.”
Cautions
He will not accept a pro se plaintiff's conclusory allegations of injury or officer misconduct where they are unsupported by sworn evidence and contradicted by contemporaneous medical records and video footage.
“Simply stating one has suffered from an unidentified physical injury is insufficient to support a claim of excessive force.”
Under Sandin v. Conner, Sanders holds that routine prison disciplinary sanctions (loss of canteen and visitation privileges, recommendation for reclassification) do not rise to the level of a due-process liberty interest, foreclosing due-process challenges to the disciplinary process itself absent an atypical, significant hardship.
“these interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which... nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the foregoing, I find that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled for purposes of the subject application for benefits. Accordingly, the Commissioner's determination of no disability and the denial of benefits should be affirmed.”
“MEMORANDUM OPINION re Final Judgment affirming decision of Commissioner. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 9/24/2008.”
“On motion of Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration... this Court hereby reverses the Commissioner's decision and remands Plaintiff's claim for further consideration of the listing for disorders of the spine found at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, Sec. 1.04.”
“JUDGMENT in favor of Michael J. Astrue against Gerald W. Smith. CASE CLOSED. Signed by David A. Sanders on 12/17/08.”
“This case came on to be heard by the court on the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and a bench trial was held December 9-11, 2008. The court, having heard and considered the evidence presented by the parties during the trial of this matter, hereby enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
“The court, having reviewed the administrative record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law and having heard and considered oral argument, finds the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security should be affirmed.”
“The court, having reviewed the administrative record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, and having heard and considered oral argument, finds the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security should reversed and remanded for further proceedings.”
“The court, having reviewed the administrative record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law and having heard oral argument, finds the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security should be remanded.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Pounders and Chism's and Lee County, Mississippi's dispositive motions are GRANTED. The plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. This CASE is CLOSED.”
“MEMORANDUM OPINION, MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment GRANTED. Five claims dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Remaining claims will be addressed in separate order.”
“the instant case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, counting as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(g). In the alternative, the plaintiff's claims regarding improper shakedowns, harassment, improper strip-searches, and the taking of property are also DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 161 days (N = 1).
Sanders's enumerated docket shows a sustained, nearly two-decade run of consent-track Social Security disability appeals spanning his entire tenure (2008 through his current 2024-2026 caseload), alongside prisoner civil-rights complaints subject to preliminary screening and dispositive motion practice, and general civil and diversity cases. A long-running Parchman-prison-conditions case (Gates v. Cook, filed 1971) appears among his enumerated dockets as inherited caseload predating his 2008 appointment and was not used for grounded motions.
Put Judge Sanders's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Sanders actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Sanders's own signed orders and cites them.