Amy E. Moses
How Judge Moses decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Social Security fibromyalgia appeal, she engages closely with treatment-note chronology rather than accepting the ALJ's characterization of the record, and applies controlling guidance that normal exam findings and conservative treatment are not strong evidence against fibromyalgia symptom severity.
“Pursuant to SSR 12-2p, because objective medical evidence does not substantiate Sarah's statements, the ALJ is to consider other evidence in the case record... The fact that Sarah's providers recommended 'conservative treatment'... does not discredit the severity of her symptoms: 'The first problem with this reasoning is that this is the appropriate treatment for fibromyalgia.'”
On discovery disputes she looks for the least burdensome remedy that still cures the deficiency, rather than the most severe sanction a moving party requests.
“Because there is a denial within Plaintiff's confusing responses, the Court finds that it would be unjust to order the Requests admitted. That leaves the Court to order that the responses be amended to comply with the Rule.”
Procedural preferences
Requires a particularized, non-conclusory factual showing of harm before granting a protective order restricting use of discovery, even where the movant asserts the material is commercially sensitive or came from a confidential arbitration.
“The Nation does not explain why such disclosure, for example, would result in a competitive disadvantage, harm in the marketplace, or disclosure of trade secrets.”
Reads the scope of a referred discovery dispute narrowly against the literal text of the district judge's prior order defining that scope, even where doing so later required clarification on review.
“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Discovery Related to Claims of Economic Duress (45) is DENIED because Plaintiff seeks discovery beyond the limited scope ordered by the Court.”
Cautions
On a Section 1927 sanctions motion, she distinguishes sharply between sanctionable vexatious conduct and mere carelessness or incompetence, and will not sanction counsel for discovery missteps that fall short of a reckless breach of professional obligations -- even while expressing concern about the underlying conduct.
“Plaintiff's counsel's discovery practices were flawed but fall short of the 'studied disregard of the need for an orderly judicial process' required for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. 1927... Counsel are reminded of their continuing duty of candor toward the tribunal.”
One of her non-dispositive discovery rulings was vacated on district-judge review under Rule 72(a), illustrating that her rulings on referred discovery disputes remain subject to a clearly-erroneous check by the assigned district judge -- in this instance because the Chief Judge found his own underlying order ambiguous, not because she misapplied settled law.
“This Court's Order, unfortunately, was not as clear as it should have been. The Court will now clarify... Magistrate Judge Moses's text order is vacated, and Ms. Gluesing's Motion to Compel is GRANTED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART as specified below and DENIED in all other respects.”
“Intervenor the Chickasaw Nation's Motion for Entry of Protective Order restricting the use of material designated as "Confidential" or "Attorneys' Eyes Only" to this litigation only (ECF No. 49) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Sever and Stay ... (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED with remand for further proceedings. Defendant's Motion to Affirm the Commissioner's Decision (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter Final Judgment for Plaintiff.”
“the Court recommends that the Motion for Leave to File SAC be GRANTED and that the SAC (ECF No. 42-3) become the operative document conditioned upon the dismissal of Count IV WITH PREJUDICE”
“the Motion for Sanctions and Other Relief (ECF No. 43) shall be DENIED.”
“The Motion Regarding Sufficiency of Answers to Requests for Admission (ECF No. 56) is GRANTED IN PART: Plaintiff shall amend her responses to Requests for Admission 3 and 5-9 to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 no later than March 13, 2026.”
“Ms. Pardo's Motion to Compel Production and Responses to Deposition Questions (ECF No. 65) is GRANTED.”
“Newport Defendants' Motion to Compel Production from Plaintiff (ECF No. 66) is GRANTED IN PART.”
“The Motions to Compel are GRANTED IN PART as to Document Request No. 5 ... The Motions to Compel are DENIED as to Document Request No. 7 pursuant to Wilton and Transamerica's representations that they have produced all information responsive to that Request.”
Sua sponte conflicts-of-interest inquiry (no party motion) in a murder-for-hire prosecution, following a show-cause referral after defense counsel's disqualification in a related Massachusetts case. Found a waivable concurrent conflict of interest exists and ordered independent counsel appointed to advise on a written waiver and colloquy, declining to disqualify counsel outright given the absence of evidence the related case's conflict extends to this one.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
As the sole magistrate serving alongside Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan, she is referred nearly every new D.R.I. civil case for pretrial management regardless of the assigned district judge, plus a large alien-detainee habeas corpus docket (8 U.S.C. 1226(a)/1225(b) bond-eligibility petitions from the Wyatt Detention Center) that moves on a roughly 1-2 week timeline, and criminal-duty matters (initial appearances, search-warrant applications, magistrate-mj case numbers). She is also the presiding judge of record (not merely a referral magistrate) on Social Security appeals and other cases where the parties consent to her jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 636(c).
Put Judge Moses's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Moses actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Moses's own signed orders and cites them.