Suzanne Mitchell
How Judge Mitchell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On summary judgment in jail failure-to-protect cases she will recommend judgment for a supervisor in his individual capacity where the plaintiff cannot show an 'affirmative link' (personal involvement, causation, culpable state of mind) -- but the reviewing district judge here found she gave too little weight to record evidence of systemic conditions (overcrowding, understaffing, camera blind spots) for the MUNICIPAL/Monell claim.
“Judge Mitchell concluded that Defendant Hobbs was entitled to summary judgment on the failure-to-protect claim raised against him in his individual capacity as a supervisor at CCDC because Plaintiff had failed to show an 'affirmative link' between the attack and any action or inaction of Defendant Hobbs.”
Enforces the AEDPA one-year limitations period strictly on 2254 petitions, declining to reach the merits once the petition is shown untimely and tolling unavailable; district judges credit her timeliness analysis as 'thorough and well-reasoned.'
“United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell agrees and recommends dismissal after finding that the habeas petition was filed over decade after the applicable statute of limitations had expired and that neither statutory nor equitable tolling applied.”
Procedural preferences
Where a Rule 12(b)(6) movant relies on materials outside the pleadings, she declines to resolve the dispute at the pleading stage and instead recommends letting the plaintiff respond with evidentiary materials under Rule 12(d) rather than converting to summary judgment prematurely.
“she instead determined that further factual development was necessary ... she concluded that Plaintiff should be afforded 'a reasonable opportunity to respond with evidentiary materials pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).'”
On a multi-ground pro se 2241 petition she separates the cognizable habeas claim (sentence calculation, allowed to proceed) from non-cognizable claims (collateral attack on conviction -> 2255; conditions-of-confinement money damages -> civil suit), recommending targeted dismissal rather than dismissing the whole petition.
“Judge Mitchell has issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Grounds One, Two, and Three be dismissed ... However, she concluded that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed with his sentence calculation claims in Ground Four.”
Cautions
Small, R&R-adoption-selected sample (5 dispositive motion-units across 4 orders + 2 excluded procedural/screening recommendations). NOT a grant rate. Of the read R&Rs, four were adopted in full and two were narrowed by the district judge on de novo review (Taylor -- SJ denied as to the municipal defendant; Curry -- prejudice softened to without prejudice), so her recommendations do not always survive review intact in this slice. Sample skews to pro se prisoner / habeas / civil-rights referral work.
“the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 65) is ADOPTED IN PART and DECLINED IN PART”
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 = 3 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 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.
“Defendants United States and BOP's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... the Bivens claim against the United States and the BOP, as well as the FTCA claims against BOP and any individual Defendants, should be dismissed with prejudice ... the FTCA claims against the United States, in addition to the Bivens claims against Defendants Zeavin and Russell in their individual capacities, should not be dismissed.”
“Defendants Zeavin and Russell's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) is DENIED.”
“Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED, the claims asserted in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Dkt. 1) are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1) as untimely filed”
“the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 65) is ADOPTED IN PART and DECLINED IN PART ... (1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 54) is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff Jeffrey Allen Taylor's failure-to-protect claim raised against Defendant William Hobbs in his individual capacity and with respect to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages; and (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to the failure-to-protect claim raised against Defendant Comanche County Facilities Authority.”
“the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motions for Summary Judgment [Doc. Nos. 50 and 51] are granted in favor of Defendants Gina Hutchison and Payne County Sheriff's Office, respectively. The Court further grants summary judgment in favor of Defendant Ryan Lassley.”
“the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 18] and DISMISSES Grounds One, Two, and Three without prejudice.”
“Judge Mitchell's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9] is ADOPTED in part. Petitioner's Motion for Fast and Speedy Trial [Doc. No. 8] is DENIED.”