Amy E. Moses
How Judge Moses rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Moses
Amy E. Moses has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Rhode Island since May 2025. She previously clerked for two judges of that court and served as counsel to the Rhode Island governor. She earned degrees from the University of California, Berkeley, and George Washington University Law School.
Judge Moses's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Moses's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
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.'”
In Davis v. City of Providence, Moses ordered amended responses to admission requests after finding that deeming the requests admitted would be unjust.
“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
In CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Korn, Moses denied a protective order because the movant had not explained how disclosure would harm its competitive position or reveal trade secrets.
“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.”
In Corriveau v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company, Moses partly granted discovery requests, allowing relevant comparator and policy material while narrowing requests that exceeded the employment issues.
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
In the Gluesing discovery dispute, Moses denied a motion to compel as beyond the scope of the district judge’s order; the district judge later vacated that ruling after clarifying the order.
“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.”
In the reviewed Corkery discovery dispute, she required the moving party to connect allegedly missing material to relevant, proportional discovery and declined to order burdensome searches or creation of nonexistent documents.
“Mr. Corkery makes numerous general allegations of deficiencies in these productions, he fails to meet his burden to demonstrate that there are other relevant proportional materials that have not been produced.”
Cautions
In Zoryan Institute v. Fox Point Pictures, LLC, she recommended denying Section 1927 sanctions despite finding counsel's late production of an altered document troubling, because the conduct fell short of the required reckless disregard of professional obligations.
“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.
“the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 71) and Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment Entered February 6, 2025 Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3), 60(b)(6), and 60(d)(3) (ECF No. 75) be DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 12) is DENIED and Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm His Decision (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter Final Judgment in favor of Defendant.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 13) is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion to Affirm the Commissioner’s Decision (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter Final Judgment in favor of Defendant.”
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).
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, not for Judge Moses: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 484 | 8.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 214 | 9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 247 | 7.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 19 | 30.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 484 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 483 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 490 | 10 months |
| Sep 2022 | 498 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 464 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 525 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 569 | 9.2 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Moses with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Moses, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Moses's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace