William E. Smith
Judge Smith no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Smith decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Rejected a constitutional-removal-power challenge to a DEA administrative law judge because the plaintiff could not show the removal protection itself had affected the challenged agency action -- an unconstitutional removal restriction, standing alone, does not establish the irreparable harm needed for an injunction.
“Removal is different from appointment because it sits downstream of an officer's powers; and, generally speaking, the river does not flow in reverse.”
In a large pharmaceutical antitrust MDL, declined to exclude a plaintiffs' damages expert after finding the underlying regression methodology sound; the judge treats attacks on an expert's data choices as fodder for cross-examination, not grounds for exclusion, once the method itself is reliable.
“Having held that Dr. French's methodology and analysis are sound and reliable, the Court concludes that Dr. French has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that each TPP sustained injury from Defendants' alleged anticompetitive conduct.”
Procedural preferences
Consistently declines to reach a federal constitutional claim until the available state-court process has run its course, applying Younger abstention even to a sympathetic First Amendment challenge when a related state licensing proceeding is already pending.
“This case checks all the boxes under Younger, and implicates none of the exceptions. Thus, the Court is compelled to abstain and GRANT Defendants['] Motion to Dismiss.”
On summary judgment, holds the nonmovant to the local rule requiring a response to the movant's statement of undisputed facts; a party who does not controvert those facts will see them deemed admitted, and an otherwise-unopposed motion granted on that basis alone.
“Because Plaintiff failed to object or otherwise respond to the Undisputed Facts, these facts are deemed admitted.”
Cautions
Will not grant qualified-immunity summary judgment on a thin factual record; without evidence of what the arresting officers actually knew at the moment of arrest, he let false-arrest and Section 1983 claims proceed to trial even while dismissing the companion emotional-distress and defamation counts in the same order.
“Neither of those pieces of evidence provide any details with regard to the facts known to, or the thought processes of, the arresting officers at the time of Sirois' arrest.”
Will enforce a statute-of-limitations bar even where the underlying facts are sympathetic; sympathy for a plaintiff does not by itself supply the fraudulent-concealment showing needed to toll the clock.
“While the facts of the case are clearly troubling, Plaintiff's claims are procedurally barred by the statute of limitations, and none of the equitable exceptions she cites can overcome that bar.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss All Claims with Prejudice Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6) or, in the Alternative, Rule 56. ECF No. 16. But the title of that Motion notwithstanding, MMJ's claims are dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) as to Count VI and DENIES that motion as to Counts II and III.”
“This case checks all the boxes under Younger, and implicates none of the exceptions. Thus, the Court is compelled to abstain and GRANT Defendants['] Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8).”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendants have not demonstrated their entitlement to summary judgment. As a result, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 100.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment are DENIED.”
“Because the Court's hands are constrained by state law, for the reasons explained above, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 60, is GRANTED. Judgment shall enter accordingly.”
“For these reasons, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and this case is REMANDED to Rhode Island Superior Court.”
“With respect to Count I of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the Court finds that...the Plaintiff is not required to send a notice of mediation conference to the Defendant... The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is otherwise DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 38, is DENIED.”
“the Court GRANTS the State's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) and DENIES and DISMISSES Fuentes's Amended Habeas Corpus Petition (ECF No. 10).”
“the Court GRANTS the Respondent State of Rhode Island's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, and DENIES Petitioner Julio Cano's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, ECF No. 1.”
“the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12, is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is DENIED and DISMISSED without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 644 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 217 days (N = 5).
Sampled dockets skew toward routine civil matters that settle or are voluntarily dismissed without a contested ruling (insurance, contract, employment, foreclosure, personal injury); 5 of 9 sampled dockets produced a grounded, classifiable motion outcome.
A historical record
Judge Smith 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.