Samuel H. Mays Jr.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee district Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 14 signed orders read

How Judge Mays decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

The judge dismisses a defendant's declaratory-judgment counterclaims when they merely restate the plaintiff's claims or an affirmative defense already available in the answer, applying the 'mirror-image' rule rather than letting duplicative claims proceed to trial.

“Defendant's Amended Counterclaim asserting that it did not infringe will necessarily be resolved by resolving Plaintiffs' claim.”

On a Rule 41(b) dismissal request over a late discovery submission, the judge weighs whether the party was ever warned that noncompliance could end the case, and treats the absence of a prior warning as effectively decisive against dismissal.

“The Court has not previously warned Tatum that failing to file the PFS would result in dismissal. Because Tatum was not previously warned, dismissal would not be appropriate.”

Procedural preferences

Motions for compassionate release are denied without prejudice, not on the merits, whenever the prisoner has not first exhausted the Bureau of Prisons' administrative process -- the judge treats exhaustion as a strict gatekeeping requirement he will not bypass even during the early COVID-19 period.

“Davis does not submit any proof that he has exhausted his administrative rights with the BOP. The Court lacks the authority to consider his motion for compassionate release.”

When a pro se litigant's counsel withdraws mid-case, the judge repeatedly extends the case timeline in 60- to 90-day increments over telephone status conferences to give the party a real chance to find new counsel before proceeding.

“Pltf indicates to the Court she has not obtained Counsel. With no objection from the defense, the Court grants 60 days for the plaintiff to continue efforts in seeking Counsel.”

Cautions

Before imposing monetary sanctions on a vexatious pro se filer, the judge issues an explicit written warning of the dollar amount per future violation rather than sanctioning on the first baseless post-judgment motion.

“The Court hereby WARNS Benson that if he continues to file baseless motions in this case, the Court may summarily dismiss the motion(s) and impose a monetary sanction of $100.00 per violation.”

The judge will vacate his own summary-judgment ruling against a pro se litigant when the litigant shows, under penalty of perjury, that mail service made his objection deadline later than the docket first reflected -- procedural fairness for self-represented parties outweighs finality by a matter of days.

“Because it is likely that Plaintiff received his physical copy of the R&R at least one day after the Court entered its Order, Plaintiff's objections likely came within the 14-day period he had to file them.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Foster v. United States
2:13-cv-02780-SHM-cgc · 2014-05-19
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and the Complaint is DISMISSED.”

Merritt v. Wipro Limited
2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp · 2025-06-30
Motion for sanctions (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 88) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Motion to vacate (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Because the Court has adopted the Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal, Plaintiff's pending motion (ECF No. 110) is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Turner v. City of Memphis
2:17-cv-2447-SHM-dkv · 2018-01-03
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and (b)(7) is DENIED.”

Chandler v. WFM-WO, Inc.
13-2450 · 2014-04-24
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“For the following reasons, the Motion to Remand is DENIED.”

Tatum v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
12-2116 · 2013-05-21
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“NPC's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”

Yates v. City of Memphis
04-2836-Ma/An · 2006-01-19
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“As this motion relies entirely on the City's second, renewed motion, the second motion to dismiss filed by defendants Boyce, Holquin, and Wallace is DENIED.”

Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion for sanctions is DENIED.”

Merritt v. Wipro Limited
2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp · 2025-02-06
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.”

United States v. Davis
2:15-cr-20067-SHM · 2019-12-18
Motion for compassionate release (defendant) Denied

“Davis does not submit any proof that he has exhausted his administrative rights with the BOP. The Court lacks the authority to consider his motion for compassionate release ... Davis's motion is DENIED without prejudice.”

United States v. Booker
2:09-cr-20002-2 · 2020-05-06
Motion for compassionate release (defendant) Denied

“Booker has not exhausted his administrative remedies with the BOP ... The Court DENIES the Motion with leave to renew if Booker exhausts his administrative remedies with the BOP.”

American Clothing Express, Inc. v. CloudFlare, Inc.
2:20-cv-02007-SHM-dkv · 2021-11-04
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs' May 25, 2020 Motion to Dismiss the original Counterclaim is DENIED as moot.”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED. Defendant's Amended Counterclaims seeking a declaration of noninfringement, a declaration that there is no evidence of the Infringing Websites' direct infringement, a declaration that Plaintiffs' notices failed to comply with 17 U.S.C. 512(b)(2)(e), a declaration that Defendant is entitled to the 512(a) safe harbor, and a declaration that Defendant is entitled to the 512(b) safe harbor are DISMISSED.”

First Horizon Bank v. Quality Leasing Co., Inc.
2:19-cv-02441-SHM-tmp · 2021-02-08
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED. The Court awards final judgment by default in favor of First Horizon on its claim for declaratory judgment (Count I of the Verified Complaint) against Quality Leasing.”

Chapman v. Olymbec USA, LLC
18-cv-2842 · 2023-03-07
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 112, is DENIED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sampled caseload spans nursing-home negligence, mortgage and foreclosure disputes, employment discrimination, prisoner federal habeas and post-conviction motions, and product-liability claims. Several prisoner filings were resolved on jurisdictional or procedural grounds without reaching the merits, and one long-running copyright dispute produced a substantive dismissal ruling in a published order.

Put Judge Mays's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Mays actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Mays's own signed orders and cites them.