Thomas W. Phillips
How Judge Phillips decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an ERISA remand-reconsideration dispute, the judge required an insurer's newly offered clarifying evidence to have existed at the time of the original decision to count as 'newly discovered' -- evidence assembled after the fact did not move him, even when offered to cure a procedural defect the court had already identified.
“The letter is not "newly discovered evidence" for one obvious reason: Dr. Clemente wrote the letter after the case was remanded to United.”
On summary judgment, unrebutted expert medical evidence tying an occupational-disease claim to a cause unrelated to employment was dispositive once the plaintiff offered nothing to rebut it.
“Plaintiff has no evidence to rebut the autopsy findings, and conceded in the memorandum brief... that... nothing associated with his work for Norfolk Southern makes the railroad liable under the FELA.”
Procedural preferences
He enforces the local court's page limits but is receptive to reasonable requests to exceed them in complex cases, and prefers telephone conferences over in-person hearings for routine matters.
“The page limitations established by Local Rule 7.1(b) should ordinarily be followed. Reasonable requests to exceed the page limitations in complex cases, however, are usually granted.”
He requires a licensed attorney's proposed pleading amendment to actually cure the underlying legal defect before granting leave to amend; a private plaintiff's boilerplate conspiracy allegation against a private business was rejected as futile when it added no specific facts.
“Plaintiff's proposed amendment fails to state specific facts alleging any further collusion, joint course of action, or other nexus with the police officers to demonstrate that the Bank's employees acted under color of law.”
Cautions
Pro se habeas petitioners who miss AEDPA's one-year filing deadline and then fail to respond to a show-cause order should not expect leniency: the petition is dismissed as time-barred and a certificate of appealability is denied outright.
“Petitioner's habeas corpus petition was filed on May 26, 2009, and is barred by the one-year statute of limitation. Accordingly, the petition for habeas corpus relief will be DENIED, and this action will be DISMISSED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 7] is DENIED”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 18] is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED.”
“the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED (Doc. 18), and this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution and failure to comply with the orders of the court.”
“the court will overrule plaintiff’s objections; deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; grant defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment; and dismiss this case.”
“grant defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment; and dismiss this case.”
“the court finds that there are multiple issues of material fact which remain to be determined at trial including: (1) whether age was a determining factor in plaintiff’s termination; and (2) whether plaintiff was replaced by a younger individual. Accordingly, Atmos Energy’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 25] is DENIED.”
“Ms. Every’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [doc. 30] is GRANTED.”
“The United States’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [doc. 19] is DENIED as moot.”
“The United States’ Motion for Permission to File a Surreply [doc. 34] is DENIED.”
“Petitioner's habeas corpus petition was filed on May 26, 2009, and is barred by the one-year statute of limitation. Accordingly, the petition for habeas corpus relief will be DENIED, and this action will be DISMISSED.”
“Select Loan Servicing’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [doc. 32] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“NSRC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; NSRC’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 93] will be granted, and this action will be dismissed.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment [Doc. 45] is DENIED, United’s Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record [Doc. 48] is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [Doc. 50] is DENIED.”
“United’s Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record [Doc. 48] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [Doc. 50] is therefore DENIED.”
A pro se prisoner civil-rights complaint screened under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act; in forma pauperis status was granted but the complaint was sua sponte dismissed because the claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the plaintiff's underlying conviction. Quote: "Plaintiff's complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1)."
“plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. 20] is without merit and is hereby DENIED.”
“Because the court concludes that the proposed amendment fails to state a cause of action against First Tennessee Bank, the court finds the proposed amendment would be futile. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint [Doc. 20] is DENIED.”
A pro se prisoner civil-rights complaint against Tennessee corrections officials and prison medical staff, sua sponte dismissed on statutory screening because the official-capacity defendants were immune and the complaint otherwise failed to state a claim. Quote: "this action is DISMISSED sua sponte, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1983."
Put Judge Phillips's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Phillips actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Phillips's own signed orders and cites them.