Bruce Marshall Selya
How Judge Selya decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Selya resisted summary disposition when competing expert evidence left material factual disputes for trial.
“The affidavit and supporting materials submitted by the plaintiffs in the case at bar make it abundantly clear that there are genuine issues of fact for trial.”
He protected the privilege against self-incrimination when a realistic prosecution risk remained, even if prosecution appeared unlikely.
“so long as the defendants’ claim of the possibility of future prosecution is not plainly insubstantial, the mere likelihood that no such prosecution will eventuate is not sufficient to compel testimony.”
He granted a targeted stay when immediate remedial proceedings risked substantial waste and appellate review could materially reshape them.
“The public interest would be disserved by an overly hasty rush to judgment here.”
Procedural preferences
Selya required an updated evidentiary record before allowing a renewed disclosure-related summary-judgment motion.
“The defendants shall, prior to re-institution of the instant motion, file an updated”
When a limitations problem might be cured by specific facts, Selya allowed a short, defined opportunity to seek leave to amend.
“The right is reserved to the plaintiffs, however, within 10 days from the date hereof, to move for leave to amend their complaint against Amtrak”
Cautions
Selya rejected fee requests when the federal litigation added nothing to relief already achieved elsewhere.
“the instant action, and the services rendered therein, have been “completely superfluous” in achieving the success enjoyed by the plaintiff”
He would not exclude damaging deposition testimony merely because a witness later regretted speaking without counsel.
“the fact that Parent would have been better advised to remain silent until consulting counsel cannot, by itself, sustain his motion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“That the third-party defendant’s motion to. dismiss the third-party complaint is granted.”
“The defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.”
“That defendants’ motion for summary judgment dated September 29, 1982 may be, and the same hereby is, denied.”
“The Court will, therefore, deny the instant motion for summary judgment without prejudice to its renewal at any time on or after June 1,1983.”
“need not be acted upon at this point in time.”
“This motion is therefore, in its Rule 37 aspects, denied.”
“The ill-gotten excess to be disgorged is, therefore, $18,037.50.”
“To this must be added pre-judgment interest from January 12, 1976 to date at 12% per annum”
“The motion to dismiss must therefore be granted.”
“his petition for habeas relief is hereby denied and dismissed.”
“the court will deny the pending motion without prejudice to the right of the movants to renew it at any time on or after December 20,1983.”
“Amtrak’s motion for judgment on the pleadings must be granted.”
“the application for fees and disbursements under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 cannot be granted.”
“the action must be, and it hereby is, dismissed.”
“the plaintiff’s motion to reverse, remand or reconsider is denied”
“the Secretary’s cross-motion to affirm is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No assigned district-era dockets were located under the two verified name variants, so the record does not support a caseload mix or timing estimate.
Put Judge Selya's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Selya actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Selya's own signed orders and cites them.