Lincoln D. Almond
Judge Almond no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Almond decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a qui tam fee dispute, he credited relators' unrebutted expert affidavits on prevailing hourly rates for a specialized practice area over a defense expert who had no comparable experience in that field.
“he does not profess to have any qui tam litigation experience or other direct knowledge that would allow him to competently opine on qui tam litigation market rates or the reasonableness of time expended on working up a qui tam case... This opinion is rejected as conclusory and unsupported.”
In Social Security appeals, he treats a claimant's intervening residential placement, or live hearing testimony from a treating source, as materially changing the record and requiring a medical expert's fresh review rather than reliance on stale non-examining opinions.
“the presence of such an admission (and records therefrom) would have been relevant to their assessment”
Procedural preferences
On discovery motions he expects the parties to negotiate a proportionate resolution before returning to court, ordering a conferral rather than compelling production outright when the accessibility or cost of records is unclear.
“the parties are ordered to confer in good faith as to a limited sampling of such documents at M+M's expense. If, after reviewing the samples obtained, the parties are unable to reach agreement as to whether or not further production is warranted, they shall request a discovery teleconference with the Court prior to resorting to further discovery motion practice.”
On attorneys'-fee petitions he applies the lodestar method strictly, distinguishing compensable merits work from 'fees on fees' litigation and cutting the latter when it is disproportionate to the merits effort.
“it is unreasonable, on its face, that Relators' counsel spent significantly more time on this fee litigation (347.8 hours) than they did litigating the merits (307.7 hours).”
Cautions
A motion to transfer venue will not succeed merely by showing witnesses are located elsewhere; the movant must show a genuine burden, not simply an inconvenience that would shift from one side to the other.
“Such a burden flip from one party to the other does not justify a transfer out of the plaintiff's preferred venue.”
Allegations of verbal harassment or humiliation by corrections staff, without more, do not in his view state an Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim.
“the allegations of verbal harassment in the Complaint, while unwelcome and humiliating, fail to rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Motions for Protective Order (Document No. 76) is GRANTED, and Defendants' Cross-Motion to Compel (Document No. 79) is DENIED. Defendants' subpoena dated April 26, 2006 is quashed.”
“Plaintiff's Motions for Protective Order (Document No. 76) is GRANTED, and Defendants' Cross-Motion to Compel (Document No. 79) is DENIED.”
“I recommend that Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count II (Document No. 80) be GRANTED”
“Defendant Wall and Defendant Weeden's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count III (Document No. 81) be GRANTED”
“I order that the Commissioner's Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner (Document No. 11) be DENIED and that Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (Document No. 9) be GRANTED.”
“Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against the Federal Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's claims against the Wyatt Defendants are DISMISSED, but Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days to pursue Eighth Amendment claims against the Wyatt Defendants.”
“Defendants' Objection is OVERRULED, and their Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“I recommend that the Petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
IFP screening R&R under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). A pro se inmate's due-process claims over a housing transfer and destroyed commissary items were recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim; Rhode Island provides adequate post-deprivation remedies for the property claim.
“Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel Further Document Production (Document Nos. 54 and 71) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as specified herein”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel regarding the Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition (Document No. 56) is DENIED.”
“I recommend that Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse (Document No. 14) be GRANTED and that Defendant's Motion to Affirm (Document No. 15) be DENIED.”
“I recommend that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21) be DENIED as moot”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF Doc. No. 19) be GRANTED.”
“the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED and the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“I recommend that the Relators' Motion for Award of Reasonable Expenses, Attorneys' Fees and Costs (ECF No. 29) be GRANTED in part in the total amount of $401,994.30”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Consent-jurisdiction caseload sampled here is overwhelmingly Social Security disability appeals (NOS 863/864); his referral-magistrate caseload (R&Rs for the district judges) spans a much broader mix of civil and habeas matters, as reflected in the published-opinion set above.
A historical record
Judge Almond no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.