L. Patrick Auld
How Judge Auld decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On initial screening of a pro se claim, the judge distinguishes carefully between allegations that describe official negligence (not a constitutional violation) and allegations that describe an actual constitutional deprivation, and will recommend dismissal even where the plaintiff's factual allegations, if true, plainly show sloppy or improper procedure.
“At most, Plaintiff’s factual assertions (if true) would support a finding that said Defendants negligently failed to follow proper administrative procedures ... "[i]njuries inflicted by governmental negligence are not addressed by the United States Constitution."”
In a Social Security appeal, the judge looks at what the ALJ actually did with a claimant's subjective complaints (credited them, and built them into the residual functional capacity) rather than accepting a claimant's characterization that the ALJ demanded objective proof, before finding reversible error.
“the ALJ apparently accorded Plaintiff’s subjective statements regarding his mental symptoms the benefit of the doubt and 1) found Plaintiff’s depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and PTSD severe impairments at step two ... 2) included multiple limitations in the RFC to account for the impact of those impairments”
Procedural preferences
On mandatory prisoner-complaint screening, the judge separately addresses each named defendant's individual actions rather than treating the complaint as a single unit, dismissing claims defendant-by-defendant where the pleading fails to tie that particular defendant to a constitutional violation.
“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens ... suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Docket Entry 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failing to state a claim.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision finding no disability is AFFIRMED, and that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The far larger share of his workload, visible throughout the district's dockets, is as referral magistrate handling case management, discovery, and dispositive-motion recommendations (heavily Social Security) across other judges' civil and habeas caseloads; where parties consent under 28 U.S.C. section 636(c), he also presides directly through summary judgment and post-judgment motions. The sample now spans both roles across nearly a decade of his docket.
Put Judge Auld's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Auld actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Auld's own signed orders and cites them.