Patricia A. Sullivan
How Judge Sullivan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In screening a repeat pro se filer's complaint, the judge relied on the litigant's own prior filings and public records to test the credibility of new factual assertions, rather than accepting them at face value.
“A check of the same database in connection with this IFP motion reflects that Mr. Rosario still appears to own at least one property, permitting the inference that the response under penalty of perjury in his Application filed in this case that he owns no real estate may not be accurate.”
Cautions
The judge closely scrutinizes pro se motions for a genuine evidentiary basis and for relief the named defendant is actually capable of granting, rather than relief against absent parties or beyond the court's authority.
“Plaintiff asks for “immediate” summary judgment but provides no evidence in support of his request... the only defendant remaining in the case is Dr. Clarke, who has not been an employee of RIDOC since early 2021.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“recommending that the State’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) be granted and that Fuentes’s Amended Habeas Corpus Petition (ECF No. 10) be denied and dismissed. Having reviewed the R&R and the relevant papers, and having heard no objections, the Court ACCEPTS the R&R and adopts its recommendations and reasoning.”
“The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Patricia A. Sullivan dated January 29, 2015 in the above-captioned matter is accepted pursuant to Title 28 United States Code § 636(b)(1). The Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner is GRANTED and the Defendant’s Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner is DENIED.”
“recommending that the Court grant the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 10) and remand the case for further consideration of the limitations caused by Plaintiff’s mental impairments. After having carefully reviewed the relevant papers and having heard no objections the Court ACCEPTS the R&R and ADOPTS the recommendations and reasoning set forth therein.”
“the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 18) in full. The plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. The defendant’s Motion the Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED.”
“I recommend that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 91) for summary judgment, mandatory injunction and change of venue be DENIED.”
Put Judge Sullivan's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Sullivan actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Sullivan's own signed orders and cites them.