S. Courter Morris Shimeall
How Judge Shimeall decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a pro se IFP screening he applies the full federalism toolkit at once: Younger abstention bars interfering with an ongoing state proceeding, and Rooker-Feldman bars district-court review of a state-court judgment the plaintiff is in substance attacking.
“Because Plaintiff's case arises from and seeks to challenge ongoing state court proceedings, this federal action is barred under the Younger abstention doctrine.”
On a Monell theory he requires more than a single incident: one officer's failure to follow a rule does not show the municipality was deliberately indifferent to a training need.
“one officer's failure to comply with a statute or rule is generally insufficient to show that the City was deliberately indifferent to a need to train officers.”
Procedural preferences
Strong adherence to the public-access presumption on sealing: even agreed or sensitive material is sealed only for the 'most compelling reasons' (Shane Group), with redaction preferred over wholesale sealing; full sealing reserved for material that genuinely cannot be redacted (e.g. audio recordings).
“documents filed with the Court may be placed under seal '[o]nly for the most compelling reasons.'”
Cautions
Declines preservation orders absent a concrete showing: parties already have a duty to preserve relevant evidence, so an order requires a demonstrated real danger of destruction and is premature before discovery.
“Plaintiff's Motion to Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice. At minimum this Motion is premature as discovery has not begun in this action.”
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.
| Motion to amend N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to seal N = 2 |
Granted in part: 2 | counts only |
| Habeas petition N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to preserve evidence 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.
“For good cause shown, Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).”
“Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion to Seal (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Exhibits U, U1, V, and X (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 11), without objection. Wherefore, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 6) WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court adopts the R&R (Doc. 34) in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Young's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) as futile.”
Shimeall-signed ORDER AND R&R. IFP GRANTED; recommends 1915(e) dismissal (Younger abstention + Rooker-Feldman + frivolousness/immunity). Sua sponte screening -> excluded from motion stats; counted as an order read. Complaint filed 2026-03-26, R&R 2026-04-09 = 14d.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Enumerated via assigned_judge='S. Courter Shimeall': as of build (2026-06) his assigned docket is a block of Social Security disability appeals (e.g. Bousman 2:26-cv-702, Chanin 3:26-cv-179, Cornwell 3:26-cv-166, Pudelski 2:26-cv-665, Parker 2:26-cv-409, Troxell 1:26-cv-296), ALL filed 2026 and ALL still pending -- no terminations yet. Separately he authors prisoner/pro se 1915(e) screening R&Rs and 2254 habeas R&Rs as a referral magistrate (case assigned to a district judge with Shimeall referred). Caseload not tallied to a fixed N; revisit once his consent SS appeals start terminating to build a real latency/outcome distribution.