Mary M. Lisi
How Judge Lisi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Section 1983 excessive-force case, she declined to resolve qualified immunity at summary judgment where the plaintiff's and defendant's sworn accounts of the incident directly conflicted, leaving the factual dispute for a jury.
“The Court declines to address Defendant's qualified immunity argument at this time.”
Sitting in diversity, she repeatedly declined to extend an unsettled state-law doctrine (here, cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling) where the state's highest court had not spoken, reasoning that a plaintiff who chooses a federal forum should not expect the court to blaze new trails in state law.
“We have warned, time and again, that litigants who reject a state forum in order to bring suit in federal court under diversity jurisdiction cannot expect that new trails will be blazed.”
Procedural preferences
In a Rule 12(b)(6)/12(b)(1) dismissal, she resolved a genuine factual dispute over when the plaintiff actually received an EEOC right-to-sue notice by crediting the specific, non-conclusory date alleged in the complaint, rather than the agency's mailing date, so the Title VII claims survived as timely.
“In light of Ciprian's continued representation that he did not receive the notice until June 25, 2012, the Court takes this factual allegation as true, as required under the 12(b)(6) standard.”
Cautions
She dismissed a putative class action with prejudice as a sanction after the plaintiff (proceeding pro se) repeatedly ignored discovery orders and a magistrate judge's rulings, and the First Circuit affirmed.
“MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dismissing this case with prejudice (granting RWU's 112 Motion for Sanctions; 126 Motion for Final Judgment; 127 Motion to Dismiss; 132 Motion for Final Judgment. All other pending motions are terminated as moot.)”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Davidson's motion to vacate and set aside the judgment of conviction is DENIED and DISMISSED.”
“Davidson's motion asserted pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)(2) is DENIED and DISMISSED.”
“this Court hereby finds that this case is not appropriate for the issuance of a certificate of appealability ("COA") because Davidson has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right"”
“Because Francisco's Rule 60(b) motion constitutes a successive §2255 petition for which he has not sought or obtained permission from the Appellate Court, the motion is DENIED and DISMISSED.”
“this Court hereby finds that this case is not appropriate for the issuance of a certificate of appealability because Francisco has failed to make 'a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right'”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
“Guzman's motion to vacate is denied and dismissed.”
“Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to serve expert reports. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“Davol's motion for judgment as a matter of law is DENIED with respect to (1) Davol's request to strike testimony by Dr. Ferzoco and Dr. Ducheyne, (2) the plaintiffs' claim for inadequate design, and (3) Laure Thorpe's claim for loss of consortium. Davol's motion is GRANTED with respect to the plaintiffs' claim for inadequate warning.”
“Davol's motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is DENIED.”
“the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED and Counts II through VIII are DISMISSED.”
“Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“The Court grants Defendants’ motion with respect to count 8 (false arrest) and count 9 (false imprisonment). The Court denies Defendants’ motion in all other respects.”
“Allstate's motion for summary judgment is granted and Banachowska's motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“The Relators’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims is GRANTED.”
“the State’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 88 days (N = 7).
Sampled dockets skew toward routine civil matters (contract, labor/ERISA benefit funds, admiralty, employment, special-education appeals) with a mix of contested summary-judgment rulings, a default judgment, and several screening dismissals of pro se prisoner complaints; 8 of 12 sampled dockets produced a grounded, classifiable motion outcome.
Put Judge Lisi's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Lisi actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Lisi's own signed orders and cites them.