Melissa R. DuBose
How Judge DuBose rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge DuBose
Melissa Raye DuBose is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge DuBose received a commission on January 2, 2025.
Judge DuBose's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge DuBose'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 DuBose decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a suit by seven unions challenging a Veterans Affairs rescission order, DuBose found that the agency's statement that it had 'further considered' its authority did not explain its change of position. She preliminarily set aside the order for those plaintiffs.
“The vague phrase ‘having further considered’ the law governing the authority to take an action or make a decision does not come close to being a ‘reasoned explanation.’”
In Royal v. Pawtucket School Committee, she declined to dismiss a long, 15-count complaint under Rule 8 after considering its organization and the burden on the defendants, while warning that the pleading came close to the rule's limit.
“Recognizing that there are some facets of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint which could, in isolation, support dismissal under Rule 8, this Court does not consider the pleading in its entirety to be in 'gross violation' of the Rule.”
In Contempo Card Co. v. Myndset Alchemy, DuBose found personal jurisdiction over guarantor Timothy Madigan based on his signature on a personal guaranty and his communications with the Rhode Island company about orders and payments.
“This Court therefore concludes that the voluntary and reasonable foreseeability factors of the purposeful availment test are met.”
In one employee-benefits dispute, DuBose applied the written retirement plan’s valuation date and rejected informal agreements that conflicted with the plan. Arguments about a benefit calculation should start with the governing plan text.
“they cause conflict with the clear and unambiguous Plan provisions.”
Procedural preferences
In Isijola v. Rhode Island Department of Revenue, she took judicial notice of the plaintiff's parallel cases in other courts when assessing the factual account in his complaint.
“This Court takes judicial notice of the proceedings in these other courts because they 'have relevance to the matters at hand.'”
In Union Insurance Co. v. Angus, DuBose applied Rhode Island's pleadings test to a duty-to-defend dispute and declined to consider documents outside the underlying complaint on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
“Therefore, the Court will not consider the extrinsic documents in evaluating if Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on the pleadings.”
In Martins v. Nessinger, DuBose denied further habeas relief after finding that the ordered bond hearing had occurred with due process and that the petitioner could seek review of the bond decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
“This Court concludes that the appropriate venue for Petitioner’s arguments, at this point, is the BIA.”
In an employment case with pleading gaps, the court conditionally denied dismissal and gave the plaintiff a chance to supply facts supporting the retaliation and discrimination claims in an amended complaint.
“Rather than grant the Motion to Dismiss, the Court affords Ms. Hussey the opportunity to file an amended complaint.”
Cautions
In United States v. Alabi, DuBose denied a Section 2255 ineffective-assistance motion after finding that counsel's affidavit, the plea agreement, and plea and sentencing transcripts contradicted many of the defendant's claims.
“Many of Alabi’s arguments are contradicted by reviewing his Counsel’s Affidavit and transcripts of the plea and sentencing hearings.”
In Abira Medical Laboratories v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island, DuBose dismissed an ERISA benefits claim because the complaint lacked facts about the patients' plans or benefits. She rejected Abira's explanation that it could not obtain the plans before discovery.
“As a result, the Court finds that Count I of Abira’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Sonner Plumbing, Inc., she denied a motion to exclude a plumbing expert because his experience supported admission and the objections to his analysis could be tested on cross-examination.
“There is an important difference between what is unreliable support and what a trier of fact may conclude is insufficient support for an expert's conclusion. ... Defendant's concerns about Mr. Zarek's opinions can be explored on cross-examination.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For these reasons, the State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Mr. Isijola's Complaint is DISMISSED.”
“1. The States' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED;”
“The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, ECF No. 98.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Counts II, III, V, VI, and a part of Count IV. The Court DENIES the motion as to Count I and a part of Count IV.”
“The Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED, except as to GPO Defendants, who for the reasons stated in footnote 8, are DISMISSED from Count I.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Abstain is DENIED.”
“the Superior Court proceedings are hereby ENJOINED and Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief is GRANTED.”
“MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 25 Motion to Dismiss; granting 26 Motion to Dismiss; and denying as premature 33 Motion for Default Judgment. So Ordered by District Judge Melissa R. DuBose on 12/23/2025.”
“For the reasons stated above, defendant Madigan's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.”
“the Court GRANTS BCBSRI's Amended Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) in its entirety. Final Judgment shall enter in BCBSRI's favor.”
“The Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED.”
“The Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 53 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 27 days (N = 6).
The sampled and enumerated dockets skew toward Social Security appeals, prisoner and civil-rights actions, diversity personal-injury and product-liability suits, insurance and commercial-contract disputes, qui tam/False Claims Act matters, and a smaller number of immigration and forfeiture actions, consistent with a general civil docket inherited from a predecessor judge plus new filings assigned since January 2025.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 12 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 5 |
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 DuBose: 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 DuBose with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge DuBose, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge DuBose's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace