Catherine Henry
How Judge Henry rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Henry decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In administrative-law challenges, Henry treats unexplained inconsistent treatment of comparable applicants as a concrete arbitrary-and-capricious defect. A litigant should identify the comparators and the missing agency distinction.
“insufficient reasons for treating similar situations differently.”
Procedural preferences
Henry may construe a self-represented litigant's opposition as a request to amend when that construction permits a curable pleading defect to be addressed directly.
“Walton’s brief in opposition (ECF 19) is CONSTRUED as a motion for leave to amend,”
Cautions
A barely developed alternative theory can fail even at the pleadings stage. Henry specifically noted the absence of supporting authority when declining to credit a speculative coverage theory.
“The argument quoted above is insufficiently developed and without citations to authority.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“HUD’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“I will grant the Motion in part.”
“The Motion to Strike is denied as moot.”
“I decline to award Defendants their attorneys’ fees and costs.”
The companion order states the precise count-level disposition for the memorandum opinion.
“grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part”
“deny Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Waterman Affidavit is granted.”
“GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Intervention (Docket No. 9) and Motion to Expedite Hearing (Docket No. 15) are DENIED as moot.”
“The Motion to Dismiss of Lehigh County Solicitor Dave Backenstoe and Sheriff of Lehigh County Joseph Hanna (Docket No. 8) is DENIED as moot.”
“Defendants’ Second Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF 18) is GRANTED.”
“Walton’s brief in opposition (ECF 19) is CONSTRUED as a motion for leave to amend, which motion is GRANTED.”
“GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART”
“Wagner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.”
“granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings by Nautilus”
“denying judgment to the defendants.”
“I will deny the Motion without prejudice.”
“I grant Quintero Sanchez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus”
“the Motion is GRANTED in part. It is further ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff Kathleen Flynn’s causes of action against Defendant (Counts I and II) shall be submitted to arbitration. 2. The case is STAYED pending Plaintiff Kathleen Flynn’s arbitration.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 73.0 days (N = 8).
Among the twenty oldest assignments, five were marked terminated in case-level metadata and fifteen remained pending. Six were coded as civil-rights matters, two as personal-injury matters, one as copyright, one as wage-and-hour, and ten lacked a usable nature-of-suit label in the sampled metadata.
Draft for Judge Henry with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Henry, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Henry's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace