H. Kenneth Schroeder Jr.
How Judge Schroeder decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a due-process dispute over a disciplinary hearing officer's reliance on staff misconduct reports, Schroeder found qualified immunity applied because the reports were not obviously falsified -- reasonable reliance on a subordinate's account defeats a later bias challenge unless the falsification was apparent at the time.
“This reliance, in and of itself, was not unreasonable as it was not apparent that the reports were falsified.”
In an FTCA case, Schroeder distinguished an ordinary staffing/safety lapse from a policy-level judgment call, holding the 'negligent guard' theory (not the discretionary-function exception) governed -- a useful frame for arguing around discretionary-function immunity in custodial-transport cases.
“[The USMS] compromised Plaintiff's safety to avoid pushing the loose weather-stripping back into place before closing the door, and such a decision would not be based upon considerations of public policy.”
Procedural preferences
On his large consent Social Security appeal docket, Schroeder follows the district's standard sequential briefing order (plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, then the Commissioner's cross-motion and response, then plaintiff's reply) and rules by a single combined order disposing of both motions together, without oral argument in the sampled cases.
“MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings and in Response to Plaintiffs Brief Pursuant to Local Standing Order on Social Security Cases by Commissioner of Social Security.”
Cautions
In a prisoner medical-care claim, Schroeder held that documented but modest injuries (lacerations, an abrasion) did not meet the Eighth Amendment's objective 'serious medical need' threshold as a matter of law -- a caution for civil-rights plaintiffs to develop the medical record on injury severity before relying on a use-of-force incident alone.
“Such injuries do not, as a matter of law, rise to the level of a "serious medical condition" warranting Eighth Amendment protection.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“GRANTS Lonsdale Schofield's motion (Dkt.# 162), to dismiss the first cause of action (CERCLA), without prejudice”
“DENIES Booth Oil's motion (Dkt.# 165), for partial summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action (accounting)”
“DENIES Joseph Chalhoub's motion (Dkt.## 173 & 179), to dismiss and/or for summary judgment on the first cause of action (CERCLA)”
“GRANTS plaintiff's motion (Dkt.# 175), for summary judgment against Booth Oil on the first cause of action (CERCLA liability)”
“grants plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on defendants' affirmative defense and counterclaim for breach of contract”
“grants defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' AWPA claim”
“denies defendants' motion for summary judgment with regard to plaintiffs' remaining claims”
“Accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, [the USMS] compromised Plaintiff's safety to avoid pushing the loose weather-stripping back into place before closing the door, and such a decision would not be based upon considerations of public policy.”
“Respondent's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #44), is GRANTED”
“Petitioner's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #52), is DENIED”
“this Court accepted Magistrate Judge Kenneth Schroeder's Report, Recommendation, and Order (Docket No. 268) which, noting Jeri Giwa's death, dismissed Giwa from the lawsuit and denied Britt leave to substitute a party.”
“defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 27) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“The State of New York is precluded from commencing further proceedings against PVS Chemicals to develop, implement or fund an inactive hazardous waste disposal remediation program for PVS Chemicals' Buffalo facility relating to environmental conditions known to it at the time of the 2002 Order of Settlement. The remainder of PVS Chemicals' request for relief is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 590 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 276 days (N = 14).
A criminal-duty docket of magistrate-number pretrial matters (initial appearances, detention hearings, guilty pleas taken on referral, largely immigration-related in the current era given Buffalo's border location) runs alongside a consent (28 U.S.C. Section 636(c)) civil docket that is now dominated by Social Security disability appeals, with a longer-running mix of prisoner civil-rights suits, employment and civil-rights cases, an insurance dispute, product-liability and CERCLA/environmental matters, a RICO case, and more recent consumer (FDCPA) and personal-injury matters from the 1990s to the present.
Put Judge Schroeder's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Schroeder actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Schroeder's own signed orders and cites them.