Paul D. Stickney
How Judge Stickney decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Pro se pleadings: he construes them liberally (Haines v. Kerner) and ordinarily recommends giving a pro se plaintiff leave to amend before dismissal UNLESS amendment would be futile -- but he will still recommend dismissal WITH prejudice where the defect is incurable (Eleventh Amendment immunity, sovereign immunity, a claim Title VII does not reach, or a binding judicial admission).
“before a court dismisses a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, a pro se plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend, unless an amendment would be futile.”
Motion-to-dismiss vs. summary-judgment posture: he declines to convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a summary-judgment motion at an early stage, especially against a pro se litigant who has had no discovery, and recommends denying without prejudice and allowing limited discovery on a dispositive factual issue (e.g. the timeliness of a transferred complaint) rather than resolving it on an unsupported record.
“it would not be appropriate to treat Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as a Motion for Summary Judgment at this nascent stage of the proceedings when Plaintiff has not had the opportunity for discovery”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 4 |
Granted: 3Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Social security appeal N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The District Court should GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 19) and dismiss Plaintiff's claim against Defendant, with prejudice, because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim.”
“This Court recommends that the District Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion. The District Court should grant Defendant's Motion based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiff's Title VII claim based on sexual orientation discrimination and dismiss with prejudice ... [and] deny without prejudice Defendant's 12(b)(1) Motion with respect to Plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim and his 12(b)(6) Motion with respect to Plaintiff's Title VII, Retaliation, and ADEA claims.”
“The Findings recommend that the Court grant Defendant Owen Murray's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) (doc. 25) for improper service of process. ... It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation (doc. 69) are ADOPTED and Defendant Murray's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 25) is GRANTED.”
“The magistrate judge entered Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ... on April 15, 2014, recommending that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the court grant Strategic Legal Solutions' Motion to Dismiss and dismiss Plaintiff's claims against SLS without prejudice. ... Accordingly, the court grants Defendant Strategic Legal Solutions' Motion to Dismiss and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's action against SLS.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation.”