Lourdes A. Martínez
How Judge Martínez decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On collateral attacks (2255), reaches the merits claim-by-claim under Strickland and recommends dismissing with prejudice the claims that fail the prejudice prong, reserving an evidentiary hearing only for a claim that cannot be resolved on the record.
“the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing all claims in Movant's 2255 motion [Doc. 1] except for his claim that his trial counsel failed to properly communicate Movant's acceptance of a 15-year plea offer”
Declines to resolve qualified immunity on the pleadings where the factual circumstances of the arrest are unclear, instead directing the pro se plaintiff to supply the missing facts.
“the Court is unable to determine whether Defendant Martinez is entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clear from Plaintiff's Complaint for which crime Plaintiff was arrested”
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.
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Section 2255 motion N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Preliminary injunction N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to remand N = 1 |
Granted in part: 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.
“the Court has determined that it will: (1) adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc. 19); (2) deny without prejudice Defendant Martinez' motion to dismiss [Doc. 12] ... the Court is unable to determine whether Defendant Martinez is entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clear from Plaintiff's Complaint for which crime Plaintiff was arrested, whether Plaintiff posed immediate threat ... or whether he was actively resisting arrest”
“the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing all claims in Movant's 2255 motion [Doc. 1] except for his claim that his trial counsel failed to properly communicate Movant's acceptance of a 15-year plea offer ... all of Defendant/Movant's claims in his 2255 motion [Doc. 1], except his claim that his trial counsel failed to properly communicate Defendant/Movant's acceptance of a 15-year plea offer to the prosecution, are DISMISSED with prejudice”
“the Court has determined that it will adopt the PF&RD and deny Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction Requesting Three Judge Panel (Doc. 7) ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction Requesting Three Judge Panel (Doc. 7) is DENIED”
“the Plaintiffs' requests in their Motion to Remand ... are granted in part and denied in part as set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition; and the case be remanded to the state district court from which it was removed”
1915(e)(2) screening: MJ Martínez recommended granting IFP, dismissing the pro se employment-discrimination complaint WITHOUT prejudice, and allowing 14 days to file a motion to amend; adopted in full by District Judge James O. Browning (plaintiff's objections overruled). EXCLUDED from motion stats per runbook (screening, not a party merits motion); recorded for the prejudice/leave signal. Grounding quote: 'dismiss the Complaint without prejudice; and ... allow Belhomme fourteen days from the date of this Order in which to file a motion to amend his Complaint.' prejudice=without_prejudice, leave_to_amend=granted.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 323.0 days (N = 10).
Judge of record by consent on a steady stream of Social Security disability appeals (DIWC/DIWW Tit. II; SSID Tit. XVI; 42:405(g)) -- the docket spine before her 2017 retirement; referral magistrate on pro se prisoner/civil-rights dockets (the reasoning layer). NOT a grant rate -- role/composition only.