James L. Graham
How Judge Graham rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Graham decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reviewed excessive-force case, conflicting accounts about resistance and danger prevented qualified-immunity summary judgment. Evidence that makes the reasonableness of force turn on disputed facts is positioned for a jury rather than resolution on the papers.
“There is a significant factual dispute as to whether Burr was resisting arrest and whether he posed a danger to the officers or to others at the scene. Thus, determining the reasonableness of the force Perkins and Tharp used to arrest Burr necessarily requires factual determinations by the jury.”
In a ballot-initiative case, the judge treated access to the signature-gathering process as a protectible First Amendment interest even though the proponents might ultimately fail to collect enough signatures. Showing loss of the opportunity itself supported preliminary relief.
“Plaintiffs ultimately might not gather enough signatures, but they have a protectible First Amendment interest in having the opportunity to try.”
Procedural preferences
Civil-rights complaints must connect each named defendant to specific conduct. Allegations that defendants acted collectively, without identifying each person's involvement, did not survive judgment on the pleadings in the reviewed case.
“Plaintiffs have failed to identify a single action specifically taken by any one of the moving defendants. Plaintiff’s entire complaint alleges that ‘defendants’ committed each act.”
Cautions
Continuing to litigate claims after the opposing party supplied the practical solution can support personal fee sanctions when the remaining proceedings are meritless and multiply the case.
“Any non-frivolous controversy concerning negligence or negligent misrepresentation ended then, and further proceedings served simply to unreasonably multiply the proceedings.”
A future-profits expert should ground the opinion in market size, customers, pricing, margins, competition, and the claimant's own financial ability to enter the market. Forecasts untethered to that analysis risk exclusion.
“It would be only from a rigorous analysis of the market that plaintiff, in the absence of proof of actual lost customers or contracts, could establish with reasonable certainty what its profits would have been.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“As to Count 1 of Plaintiff Shaw’s Complaint, alleging malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendant Wozniak’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, because Shaw cannot show a deprivation of constitutional liberty sufficient to sustain such claim. As to Counts 2-9 ... the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction ... and therefore ORDERS, sua sponte, that such claims be DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“the motion for summary judgment of defendants Sibbalds, Pierce, Dickerson, and Cobb (Doc. 95) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter final judgment for all defendants.”
“This Court GRANTS Mount Vernon’s motion for summary judgment on Burr’s Section 1983 claim ... This Court DENIES Defendants’ Perkins’s and Tharp’s motion for summary judgment on Burr’s Fourth Amendment claims and on Burr’s state law claims of assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress ... This Court GRANTS Perkins’s and Tharp’s motion for summary judgment on Burr’s state law claims for defamation and false imprisonment”
“defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 67) is GRANTED in its entirety and this action is hereby dismissed.”
“With these considerations in mind and based on the foregoing reasons, Arrow's motion for sanctions (doc. 146) is conditionally GRANTED. Plaintiffs' attorney shall be personally liable to the movants for all attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred between January 11, 2011 and April 6, 2012.”
“Accordingly, because the plaintiffs failed to specifically allege how each of the moving defendants was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations, judgment on the pleadings is proper. ... [T]he motions for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendant Greg Nohe (doc. 24), Joshua Staats (doc. 26), Jerry Peters (doc. 28), Scott Parks (doc. 30) and Christine Roberts (doc. 50) are GRANTED. If plaintiffs wish to seek leave to file an amended complaint, they shall do so within 20 days from the date hereof, otherwise the court will direct the clerk to enter final judgment for the moving defendants.”
“The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. The Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 33) is DENIED and DISMISSED.”
“The Report and Recommendation, ECF 12, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.”
“Accordingly, the court adopts the report and recommendation (Doc. 14). The motions to dismiss (Docs. 6 and 11) are granted in part and denied in part. The habeas claim is dismissed, and the Bivens claim will be allowed to proceed.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, (Doc. 27), except as to Plaintiffs' claim regarding Rule 4.3(C).”
“Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Order [Doc #204] (ECF No. 206) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's First and Seventh Causes of Action against Defendants Michelle Lovette, Cynthia Ricker, and Melanie Fultz are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Court also amends its November 20, 2020 Order (ECF No. 169) to GRANT summary judgment to Defendant Jacob Hays on the equal protection portion of Plaintiff's Second Legal Claim (Am. Compl. ¶ 75) and to Defendant Aaron Sowers on the equal protection portions of Plaintiff's Seventh and Eighth Legal Claims (Id. at ¶¶ 80–81). These claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for default judgment for a sum certain (doc. 15) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall enter a Final Default Judgment for Plaintiff Stifel Financial Corporation and against Defendant Michael J. Iannarino in the amount of Three Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($330,000.00), plus interest on that amount at a rate of 12% per annum beginning on October 16, 2018.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
A December 2022 filing sample includes civil-rights, fair-housing and accommodation, consumer-warranty, trademark, stockholder and fiduciary, and federal criminal matters. Duration figures use six terminated civil cases and exclude criminal and pending cases.
Draft for Judge Graham with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Graham, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Graham's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace