Martin C. Carlson
How Judge Carlson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Sec. 1983 false-arrest and excessive-force suits, he frames the qualified-immunity question narrowly around the specific facts confronting the officer rather than the general constitutional right at stake, and treats a plaintiff's own guilty-plea admissions as foreclosing a later factual dispute about what happened during the arrest.
“no reasonable officer would have believed they were violating Hunt's rights by arresting and prosecuting him for these crimes”
A defendant's guilty plea admitting the facts underlying a criminal charge (e.g., pointing a firearm at an officer) forecloses that same plaintiff's later Sec. 1983 claim that the facts were otherwise, under Heck v. Humphrey.
“Defendant's guilty plea where he admitted to aiming a firearm at Rooney completely undermines his assertion now that he did not aim a firearm at Rooney.”
Procedural preferences
He enforces the 60-day Sec. 405(g) filing deadline for Social Security appeals strictly, and requires more than a missed deadline plus a change of counsel to invoke equitable tolling -- a plaintiff must show active deception by the government or an extraordinary, diligently-pursued obstacle to filing on time.
“it is entirely undisputed that the Social Security Appeals Council denied review of the plaintiff's case on February 1, 2023... Hopersberger did not file her complaint in a timely fashion”
In multi-plaintiff pro se prisoner litigation where the individual claims arise from different times, places, and actors and the plaintiffs are in open disagreement with one another, he will sever the case into separate lawsuits under Rules 20 and 21 rather than manage a single sprawling, discordant complaint.
“severance of these claims into six separate lawsuits is also justified under Rule 21”
Cautions
Motions for reconsideration are granted sparingly and only on an intervening change in law, new evidence, or a clear error/manifest injustice -- a litigant who merely re-argues a prior ruling, even at length, will be denied, and a party seeking discovery-related relief without properly serving the motion risks having an already-granted order vacated once the omission is raised.
“a mere disagreement with the court does not translate into the type of clear error of law which justifies reconsideration of a ruling”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss, Doc. 28, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendants John Wetzel, Shannon Quegley, Kathy Brittain, and S. Kephart.”
“The motion (Doc. 7) is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Frye's Fourteenth Amendment and "reckless disregard for safety" claims. The motion (Doc. 7) is DENIED in all other respects.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED.”
“Western Express's motion (Doc. 3) to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part... GRANTED to the extent it seeks a more definite statement as to paragraph 33 of the complaint... DENIED in all other respects.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. The above-captioned action is DISMISSED.”
“The petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“The petition, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal once Petitioner has properly exhausted his state court remedies.”
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)/1915A prisoner screening review adopted by District Judge Malachy E. Mannion: "the report and recommendation of Judge Carlson will be ADOPTED in its entirety, and the plaintiff's complaint will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The plaintiff will be permitted to file an amended complaint." No party motion; counted as an order read only.
“Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that that the increasingly discordant claims of these six inmate plaintiffs be severed into six separate complaints.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration, (Docs. 152 and 155.) are DENIED.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that Hill's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 138), be DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the defendants' motion to strike (Doc. 141) be DISMISSED as MOOT.”
“Since this motion to reconsider does not satisfy the precise burden of proof and persuasion required by law for such motions, the motion to reconsider (Doc. 23) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 338 days (N = 14).
The sampled consent Social Security docket spans DIWC/DIWW (Title II) and SSID (Title XVI) disability claims. His broader caseload also includes contract and insurance diversity suits, ADA and Rehabilitation Act employment claims, Sec. 1983 prisoner civil-rights and excessive-force suits, Sec. 2254 habeas corpus petitions, and a magistrate's typical criminal duty (warrants, forfeitures, misdemeanor matters) -- none of the latter carry a groundable dispositive-motion outcome and were not scored here.
Put Judge Carlson's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Carlson actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Carlson's own signed orders and cites them.