Frank D. Whitney
How Judge Whitney decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Marler v. Commissioner of Social Security, Whitney remanded because the administrative decision did not explain why a moderate concentration, persistence, or pace limitation required no corresponding restriction on staying on task.
“the Commissioner's Decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum and Order.”
At summary judgment, Whitney treats clear video evidence as controlling when it directly contradicts a party's account of the event and leaves no genuine factual dispute for a jury.
“The video evidence clearly contradicts the Plaintiff’s version of events that the restraints Lay applied were so excessively tight that they caused immediate extremely pain, and that Nurse Starrette should have immediately corrected the same, such that no jury could believe it.”
Cautions
In Tipton v. Page, Whitney dismissed an amended prisoner complaint with prejudice after the plaintiff failed to cure the defects identified in an earlier dismissal and again presented a pleading that did not comply with Rule 8.
“the Court will not scour and piece apart Plaintiff's rambling stream-of-conscious pleading to state a claim for him”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Commissioner's Decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum and Order.”
On screening an amended prisoner civil-rights complaint, Whitney dismissed with prejudice after the plaintiff failed to cure defects identified in the first dismissal. He found most claims time-barred, concluded that the remaining medication-delay theory alleged negligence rather than a constitutional violation, and declined to reconstruct a rambling pleading for the plaintiff.
On screening a prisoner's deliberate-indifference complaint, Whitney dismissed without prejudice and allowed 30 days to amend. The official-capacity damages claims were barred, the allegations against the custody officer did not show conscious disregard of a serious medical need, and the complaint did not allege personal involvement by the supervisory defendants.
“The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 46] is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Insofar as the Plaintiff means to exclude that evidence from being presented ... at trial, such is premature. The Motion in Limine will, therefore, be denied.”
“The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not carried his burden of demonstrating that the Defendants had control over the video footage, or that the loss of the video footage was accompanied by an adequately culpable state of mind. Accordingly, the Motion to Stay will be denied.”
“This Motion is premature, as such relief that would only be relevant if the matter were to proceed to trail. It will, therefore be denied.”
“The Defendants’ Motion to Stay the deadline to respond to the Motion in Limine [Doc. 57] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff's Amended Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, (Doc. No. 4), is DENIED without prejudice to pay the filing fee or refile an amended Application within twenty-one (21) days of this Order.”
Sua sponte initial review of a pro se prisoner Section 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and 1915A; complaint dismissed without prejudice with 30 days to amend: "Plaintiff's Complaint fails initial review under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim for relief and shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE".
Initial review of a pro se Section 1983 amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and 1915A; federal claims dismissed with prejudice and supplemental state-law claims dismissed without prejudice: "Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. 9] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim for relief, except for Plaintiff's state law claims, which are DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE".
Initial review of a pro se prisoner ADA/Rehabilitation Act and Eighth Amendment complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) and 1915A; complaint dismissed without prejudice with 30 days to amend, and two improper letters stricken: "Plaintiff's Complaint fails initial review under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim for relief and shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE".
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 447 days (N = 10).
The sampled caseload includes several sealed False Claims Act matters, transferred product-liability cases, criminal matters, Social Security appeals, and self-represented prisoner civil-rights and habeas cases. The longest sampled case durations were in multi-year sealed False Claims Act matters; transferred product-liability cases also appear in the sample but do not supply Whitney-authored pretrial rulings.
Put Judge Whitney's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Whitney actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Whitney's own signed orders and cites them.