Pamela Ann Barker
How Judge Barker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a design-defect theory she requires plausible causation tied to THIS plaintiff: failure to allege the specific thief was targeting the unprotected vehicle (or could not have stolen a protected one) defeats but-for causation.
“dismissal is warranted for the additional reason that Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the design of the Kia Sportage involved in the August 2022 collision was a 'but for' or 'cause-in-fact' of her injuries.”
On removal she keeps mandatory-jurisdiction (damages) claims and applies the Grand Trunk discretionary factors to declaratory claims rather than remanding the whole case.
“Because this Court must retain jurisdiction over at least part of E.P.'s Complaint, this factor weighs in favor of retaining jurisdiction over E.P.'s Declaratory Judgment claim as well.”
Procedural preferences
Reconsideration is reserved for clear error of law, new evidence, intervening law, or manifest injustice -- not relitigation; she declined to revisit a Rule 9(b)/OCSPA dismissal absent any of these.
“the Detricks have not shown a clear error of law, presented new evidence, identified an intervening change in controlling law, or established that reconsideration prevents a manifest injustice.”
Cautions
Will impose a pre-filing (vexatious-litigant) injunction and certify an appeal as not in good faith against a repeat pro se filer relitigating the same dispute.
“Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any new actions without first seeking and obtaining leave to proceed as set forth in this Memorandum of Opinion and Order.”
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 = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for judicial notice N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to remand N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED to the limited extent set forth herein.”
“Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) is granted and this case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Accordingly, and for all the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. No. 63) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Enumerated via assigned_judge='Pamela Ann Barker' (oldest-first sample of 12 terminated dockets, filed 2014-2017 / terminated 2019-2021). NOS mix is diverse: 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas (4), securities/TransDigm (2), civil rights (2: education IDEA + other), ERISA (1), qui tam/FCA (1), contract/oil-&-gas (1), criminal (1). Many predate her 2019 commission and reached her by reassignment, so this reflects her current assigned inventory, not exclusively her own filings. Not tallied to a fixed N; durations are groundable but motive caution: signer != assigned_judge on reassigned dockets.