John Garvan Murtha
Judge Murtha no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Murtha decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a motion to suppress recorded evidence, a cooperating informant's own consent to be recorded defeats a wiretap-statute/Fourth Amendment challenge, even where the challenger emphasizes technical deficiencies in a state-issued wire warrant.
“as part of his cooperation with law enforcement, the CI 'voluntarily and freely' consented to the interception of communications... the conversations were properly recorded under Sec. 2511(2)(c) and Defendant's motion to suppress on this ground is denied.”
On reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop, the totality of the circumstances -- remote location, hour, and evasive answers -- can establish suspicion that quickly ripens into probable cause, without any single fact independently justifying police action.
“The defendants were parked on the side of the highway, in the middle of the night, in a remote area known for alien smuggling, at a time when border agents had just apprehended nine intruders and had observed their two guides fleeing... Officer Charboneau and Agent Progen acted reasonably.”
In a first-to-file venue dispute, a party's own litigation conduct -- waiting months to sue, then reversing its stated urgency -- can undercut its position and support an exception to first-filed priority.
“despite knowing as early as March 15, 2006 that Copeland was claiming to be the Foundation's exclusive licensee, this case was not filed until almost four months later... any preliminary injunction would have to be issued by the end of the 2006 summer; a time that... has long since come and gone.”
Procedural preferences
A motion to dismiss an indictment is not the vehicle to test the sufficiency of the government's trial evidence; the indictment need only track the statute, leaving intent and true-threat questions for the jury.
“a motion to dismiss is not the proper mechanism to challenge sufficiency of the evidence... The indictment sufficiently charges Robitaille with the offense.”
Pro se status earns procedural leniency and standard notice of what a summary-judgment motion requires, but it does not excuse noncompliance with basic pleading rules -- a complaint that does not even state a jurisdictional basis will be dismissed sua sponte.
“Hill's complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction... the basis of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction cannot be gleaned from the complaint. Accordingly, it is sua sponte dismissed.”
A motion for reconsideration filed outside the local rule's deadline can be denied on timeliness alone, without reaching the merits.
“Veale's motion to reconsider was filed more than 10 days after the Court's decision, and was therefore untimely.”
Cautions
Younger abstention bars a federal plaintiff from using an injunction to short-circuit an ongoing state civil or criminal proceeding whenever an important state interest is at stake and the state forum offers a path to raise the constitutional claims.
“it is improper for a federal court to interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent irreparable injury that is both great and immediate... Younger abstention also has been extended to state civil proceedings.”
Judges hold absolute immunity for judicial acts -- including issuing a search warrant -- and that immunity survives allegations of bad faith, supporting sua sponte dismissal of such claims at the prisoner-screening stage.
“Judges have absolute immunity for judicial acts performed in their judicial capacities... This absolute 'judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motions to dismiss (Papers 13, 22 and 23) are GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall be allowed 30 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint.”
“Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Paper 7) is DENIED as premature.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss (Paper 15) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's motions for voluntary dismissal (Papers 25 and 31) are DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be allowed thirty days to file an Amended Complaint.”
“Copeland's motion to dismiss (Paper 16) is hereby GRANTED to the extent it seeks to have this case dismissed without prejudice”
“its alternative motion to stay the proceedings is moot”
“Cassina's motion to transfer (Paper 26) is hereby DENIED”
“Defendants Engels and Pressey's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is DENIED as moot, and because they are not identified as parties in the amended complaint (Doc. 15), they shall be terminated as Defendants.”
“Defendant Mack's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED, insofar as the motion seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Sec. 1983 and Title 18 claims. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's state law claims.”
“the government's motion to dismiss (Paper 13) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“the defendants' motion to dismiss (Paper 8) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
A screening/in-forma-pauperis order granting leave to proceed without prepayment of fees and giving the pro se prisoner-plaintiff standard notice of summary-judgment procedure; rules on no party motion.
“Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Paper 15) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss (Paper 19) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 30) is DENIED as moot.”
“Petitioner's habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.”
“Respondent's motion to dismiss (Paper 5) is DENIED as moot.”
“the Court DENIES petitioner a certificate of appealability ('COA') because the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 305 days (N = 6).
The sampled dockets spanned federal habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. 2254, post-conviction motions under 28 U.S.C. 2255, a prisoner civil-rights suit, employment discrimination claims, Social Security disability appeals, contract and personal-injury/tort matters, medical malpractice, copyright, product liability, and federal criminal prosecutions -- consistent with a general district docket in a small state, with a substantial post-conviction and habeas share reflecting Vermont's single state prison system litigating largely before a small pool of federal judges. Motions filed against him thin out and stop by his October 2017 move to inactive status; his one pending sampled case was reassigned around that time.
A historical record
Judge Murtha 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.