Paul D. Stickney
How Judge Stickney rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Stickney no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Stickney
Paul D. Stickney served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas from 1998 until his retirement in 2018. Before joining the bench, he served in the United States Air Force and worked as First Assistant Federal Public Defender for the district.
How Judge Stickney decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Brodzki v. Bryson, Magistrate Judge Stickney recommended dismissal with prejudice of claims he found legally incurable but allowed limited discovery on the timeliness of other claims before deciding them.
“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.”
In Brodzki v. Bryson, Stickney declined to convert a dismissal motion into summary judgment while the self-represented plaintiff had not had discovery. He recommended limited discovery on the complaint's timeliness before resolving that factual issue.
“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”
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.”
“For the reasons stated above, this Court recommends that the Motions to Dismiss of the moving defendants be granted. Further, Plaintiff's claims against the non-moving defendants should also be dismissed without prejudice. Additionally, Plaintiff's pendant state law claims should be dismissed without prejudice.”
Sua sponte recommendation to dismiss without prejudice for want of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), for failure to pay the filing fee or cure an IFP deficiency. This recommendation did not resolve a party motion.
“For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution.”
28 U.S.C. 1915(e) preliminary screening of a pretrial detainee's pro se civil-rights complaint, recommending dismissal with prejudice as frivolous. This screening recommendation did not resolve a party motion.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court further recommends that the District Court dismiss this action pursuant to § 1915(g), unless Plaintiff tenders the $350.00 filing fee to the District Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this recommendation.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E. 9].”
“Plaintiff contends that summary judgment is proper because 'the Defendants to not wish to settle and have not offer [sic] a settlement.' Plaintiff's motion is merely conclusory and does not provide any evidence to support a finding that no material question of fact exists as to all elements of his claim. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Eme should be denied at this stage of the proceedings... Therefore the District Court should deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the claim of excessive force against Eme.”
“The Court recommends that the District Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the excessive force claims brought against Defendants Eme and Smith and GRANT Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to all other claims.”
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Stickney was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2020.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Stickney no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.