John C. Gargiulo
Judge Gargiulo no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Gargiulo 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, he traced a claimant's residual-functional-capacity challenge back to the underlying medical source the ALJ relied on -- in one case finding that because every source the ALJ cited tied its own opinion to a functional capacity evaluation that itself did not support the ALJ's conclusion, the decision could not stand on substantial evidence, and remanded rather than affirming.
“Given that the sources the ALJ relied on in determining that Hudson could perform the full range of light work tied their decisions to the FCE, there is not substantial evidence to support the determination that Hudson has the capacity to perform a full range of light work.”
In prisoner civil-rights suits he held plaintiffs strictly to the Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement, granting summary judgment where the administrative grievance never actually raised the claim later pursued in federal court, even where the plaintiff had filed some grievance about the underlying incident.
“the Court concludes that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment must be GRANTED because Plaintiff did not exhaust his claim for excessive force through MDOC's administrative grievance process before filing this suit.”
Procedural preferences
He enforced his own show-cause and briefing deadlines: when a pro se plaintiff stopped responding to an order to show cause after not opposing a pending summary-judgment motion, he dismissed the case for failure to prosecute rather than let it sit dormant, mooting the pending motion.
“Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and obey orders of the Court; therefore, his Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.”
In consent Social Security appeals he ran a standard sequence -- an order requiring the claimant's opening brief and the Commissioner's response, consideration of the parties' cross motions, then a final Memorandum Opinion and Judgment -- and routinely granted unopposed extension requests without requiring a written motion beyond a text order.
“TEXT ONLY ORDER granting Plaintiff's 14 Unopposed Motion for Additional Time to File Brief. Plaintiff's brief is now due 8/17/18. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE.”
Cautions
He denied appointment-of-counsel motions from pro se prisoner-plaintiffs as a matter of course absent a showing of exceptional circumstances, doing so in every instance found in this record -- lawyers representing similar plaintiffs should not expect appointed counsel to be a fallback and should plan for the client to proceed pro se through summary judgment.
“ORDER denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff shall file a response consistent with this Order no later than September 20, 2018.”
He required a claimant's own signature (not just counsel's) before granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss a Social Security appeal, denying a first attempt without prejudice for lack of proof the claimant personally concurred.
“The Court will entertain a Motion to Dismiss Appeal that Plaintiff has signed, or Plaintiff's counsel must submit other proof that Plaintiff concurs with the Motion to Dismiss Appeal.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 17 Motion for Hearing; granting 18 Motion to Dismiss; granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Because the circumstances do not warrant equitable tolling, summary judgment should be rendered in favor of the Commissioner.”
“Because the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and in accord with relevant legal standards, the Commissioner's decision should be affirmed and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings denied.”
“MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 41 Motion for Attorney Fees. Ordered that Plaintiff is awarded $1,000 in statutory damages and $15,480 in attorney fees.”
“IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for an Order Affirming the Commissioner's Decision (ECF No. 16) is DENIED and the case is REMANDED.”
“the Court concludes that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment must be GRANTED because Plaintiff did not exhaust his claim for excessive force through MDOC's administrative grievance process before filing this suit.”
“the Court finds that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED for the reasons submitted by Defendants.”
“the undersigned concludes that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30), filed by Ronald Woodall and Karen Deese, and the Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Sovereign and Qualified Immunity (ECF No. 35), filed by Marshall Fisher, will both be GRANTED.”
“the Court concludes that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) will be GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and obey orders of the Court; therefore, his Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.”
“Ordered that 102 Motion for Summary Judgment is rendered moot.”
“Memorandum Opinion and Order: that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.”
“Memorandum Opinion and Order - IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion to Affirm 16 is DENIED and the case is REMANDED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion to Affirm 14 is GRANTED, and the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 84 days (N = 10).
Judge Gargiulo's sampled consent docket is dominated by Social Security disability appeals and prisoner civil-rights suits under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, with a smaller share of diversity contract, personal-injury, and debt-collection matters.
A historical record
Judge Gargiulo no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.