Carol E. Heckman

United States District Court for the Western District of New York magistrate No longer serving 20 signed orders read

Judge Heckman no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Heckman decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Heckman recommended denying summary judgment where the motion arrived before discovery had matured and factual disputes remained for trial.

“Magistrate Judge Heckman recommended that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, finding that Defendant’s motion was premature in several respects and that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.”

On a motion to add a seat-belt defense, Heckman treated the loss of physical evidence as concrete prejudice and denied an amendment raised after discovery had closed.

“the government’s delay in raising the seat belt defense is unjustified and that the delay has resulted in undue prejudice to plaintiffs due to the unavailability of physical evidence.”

Procedural preferences

Heckman applied the liberal amendment standard but required more than delay alone to deny a timely proposed pleading amendment.

“Delay or untimeliness alone is not sufficient to defeat a motion for leave to amend a complaint.”

In discovery, Heckman distinguished routine accident reporting from material genuinely prepared for litigation and ordered production when the resisting party did not carry its burden.

“defendants have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the accident report at issue was prepared solely in anticipation of litigation.”

Cautions

Although she ultimately vacated a judgment to facilitate settlement, Heckman warned that conditioning settlement on vacatur improperly draws the court into the parties' bargain.

“the parties are effectively involving the court as an unwilling third-party participant in their settlement process, which is not an appropriate role for a court.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

International Cablevision, Inc. v. Cancari
· 1997-03-05
Default judgment (cable operator) Granted

“IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that this Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety, including the authorities cited and the reasons given therein, and that Plaintiffs motion for default judgment and permanent injunctive relief is GRANTED.”

Giles v. Irvin
· 1996-02-21
Habeas petition (state prisoner) Denied

“Based on the foregoing, the petition for habeas corpus is denied.”

United States v. Gaines
· 2000-03-21
Motion to suppress (criminal defendant) Denied

“FURTHER, that Defendant’s motion to suppress is DENIED;”

United States v. Pena
· 1998-09-25
Motion to dismiss indictment (criminal defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Heckman’s Report and Recommendation, defendant’s motion to dismiss Count 1 of the indictment is denied.”

Brooks ex rel. Brooks v. Outboard Marine Corp.
· 1999-03-29
Summary judgment (outboard-motor manufacturer) Denied

“IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that this Court accepts Magistrate Judge Heck-man’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety, including the authorities cited and the reasons given therein, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”

Motions to strike (outboard-motor manufacturer) Moot / procedural

“Defendant’s motion (Item 62) to strike plaintiffs memorandum and affidavit is denied as moot (see note 3, infra).”

Pahuta v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
· 1999-06-07
Motion to limit scope of retrial (equipment manufacturer) Denied

“For the reasons set forth above, defendants motion (Item 202) is denied.”

Meek v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union
· 1994-10-28
Summary judgment (security-company defendants) Denied

“the Court denies APS’s motion for summary judgment on the claims for defense and indemnification against Occidental”

Motions to dismiss (third-party corporate defendant) Granted

“grants Occidental’s cross-motion to dismiss the defense and indemnification claims.”

Brasky v. Jermain
· 1996-05-22
Motion to substitute party (United States) Granted

“Accordingly, it is ordered that the United States be substituted as the party defendant to this action (Item 2).”

Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“Accordingly, it is ordered that the government’s motion to dismiss (Item 2) be granted.”

Amaker v. Hakes
· 1996-01-12
Motions to dismiss (corrections official Hakes) Granted

“FURTHER, that defendant Hakes’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (corrections official Kelly) Denied

“FURTHER, that defendant Kelly’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is DENIED.”

Motion to amend answer (corrections official Schiefer) Granted

“Also for the reasons set forth above, defendant Schiefer’s motion for leave to amend his answer (Item 24) is hereby GRANTED.”

Motion for extension of time (prisoner plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Because plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss has since been filed and fully considered by this court, plaintiff's motion for an extension of time is denied as moot.”

Default judgment (prisoner plaintiff) Denied

“Because defendant Sehiefer timely filed an answer to the amended complaint (Item 12), plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment should be denied.”

Hollis v. City of Buffalo
1:94-cv-00539 · 1999-05-24
Motion for rehearing (civil-rights plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs motion (Item 40) for a rehearing on the issue of damages, and permitting the taking of additional testimony is denied.”

Coleman v. Dydula
· 1999-09-08
Motion to preclude expert testimony (defendants) Granted in part

“For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.”

Motion for extension of time (plaintiffs) Denied

“Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the time in which to file Herbert Weber’s expert report (Item 56, at 11124) is denied.”

United States v. Pecoraro
· 1997-02-24
Motion to suppress electronic surveillance (criminal defendant) Denied

“Magistrate Judge Heckman filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of electronic surveillance be denied.”

Motion to suppress home search (criminal defendant) Denied

“Magistrate Judge Heckman filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search of his home be denied.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sampled cases included civil-rights, employment, trademark, habeas, and prisoner matters. Historical entry coverage was too sparse to support a comprehensive caseload or timing claim.

A historical record

Judge Heckman 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.