Amanda Maxfield Green
How Judge Green decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion she assesses the complaint alone and disregards new factual assertions a pro se plaintiff raises only in responses or his own motions, while still liberally construing the pleading -- but does not act as the litigant's advocate or manufacture arguments.
“the magistrate judge correctly stated that '[t]he court's function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the plaintiff's complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim' ... the magistrate judge properly 'ignored any new factual assertions Plaintiff include[d] in his own motions and his responses to the Defendants' motions.'”
Applies Younger abstention to a 2254 petition while parallel state post-conviction proceedings are pending, and rejects the argument that a McGirt jurisdictional challenge creates an exception excusing exhaustion -- dismissing (not staying) where the same claims are being pursued in state court and no damages claims exist.
“United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield Green ... recommends that Petitioner Franklin Savoy Combs's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 be dismissed under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), that Respondent's motion to dismiss be denied as moot”
Procedural preferences
In multi-defendant pro se suits she resolves the whole field of motions in one omnibus R&R -- granting the meritorious Rule 12(b)(6)/56 motions, recommending sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of unserved/unappearing defendants, and separately denying collateral motions (sanctions, strike, default judgment) rather than blending them.
“she recommended the following motions be granted ... [eight defendant motions] ... The magistrate judge further recommended dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Toledo, Easter, and Powers, and denying the following motions: Defendant Stewart's Motion for Sanctions ... Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment”
Cautions
VERY THIN, grant-skewed sample. Only 2 merits-dispositive motion-units (an MTD and an MSJ), BOTH grants, BOTH inside a single multi-defendant pro se order (Maldonado Castillo); the other read orders are an abstention dismissal and an IFP screening dismissal. As a 2020-appointed magistrate, her GovInfo adopted-R&R trail is short and dominated by pro se prisoner/habeas screening. NOT a grant rate. Deepen with merits MTD/MSJ R&Rs that were DENIED and with non-prisoner referral work.
“the Court, having conducted a de novo review, finds that Plaintiff's objection should be overruled, and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 68] in its entirety.”
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: 1Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Habeas petition N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 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 Stewart's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Gourley's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 22] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Callaway's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 24] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Bondurant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 26] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Palomar's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 37] is GRANTED; ... Defendant OCCJA's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 39] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Turn Key's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 41] is GRANTED; ... Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant CJ's Bail Bonds' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 16] is GRANTED;”
“the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 19] for the reasons stated therein and DISMISSES this action without prejudice consistent with Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ... The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.”
“All other pending motions [Doc. Nos. 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18] are DENIED as moot.”
IFP/28 U.S.C. 1915 screening posture. Green granted the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed him to pay an $18 initial partial filing fee; when he did not pay or show cause, her 2022-05-31 R&R (Doc. 10) recommended dismissal without prejudice to refiling. District Judge Stephen P. Friot adopted the unobjected R&R and dismissed without prejudice. EXCLUDED from motion stats: administrative IFP/1915 screening dismissal, not an adversarial party motion. Recorded for completeness as an order read.