James P. Hutton
Judge Hutton no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Hutton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security appeals he looked closely for internal inconsistency within a treating or examining source's own opinion before crediting it, treating an opinion contradicted by the source's own exam findings as a legitimate reason to discount it.
“The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Moise's April 2009 opinion because the opinion is inconsistent with her own findings. A medical opinion may be rejected by the ALJ if it contains inconsistencies.”
A settlement release voluntarily signed and supported by consideration will bar nearly all later civil-rights claims arising from the same incidents, even where the plaintiff later regrets the amount; he required actual evidence of coercion, not just second thoughts, to avoid one.
“One attacking a release or settlement 'must bear the burden of showing that the contract he [or she] made is tainted with invalidity.' ... Plaintiff fails to establish the first and second elements. He presents no evidence of coercion nor any other reason the release should be invalidated.”
Procedural preferences
In multi-plaintiff pro se prisoner cases he favored severing each plaintiff into a separate action for administrative manageability, citing the delay and confusion multi-inmate co-plaintiff litigation tends to create.
“In this court's experience, an action brought by multiple inmate plaintiffs proceeding pro se presents procedural problems that cause delay and confusion. Delay often arises from the frequent transfer of inmates to other facilities or institutions...”
Cautions
On pretrial-release modification requests in serious cases, he weighed the underlying quantity of contraband and presence of firearms heavily even against a clean compliance record, and would not lift monitoring conditions where the alleged conduct suggested a continuing community-safety risk.
“The charges are incredibly serious. Any time there are firearms present along with controlled substances, there is an increased risk of danger to the community. ... GPS monitoring and the curfew conditions aid compliance, thereby reducing risk to the community.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED. The case is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four for further administrative proceedings. 2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED: Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 20, is granted. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 17, is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 18, is granted. 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 16, is denied.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's motion for temporary furlough (ECF No. 77) is DENIED, with leave to renew.”
“Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton filed a Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 10, recommending Mr. Tomisser's request to Voluntarily Dismiss this action be granted. Defendants have not been served. There being no objections, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (ECF No. 29) and Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 30) are GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (ECF No. 40) is DENIED and Defendant's Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (ECF No. 39) and Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 40) are GRANTED.”
“No objections having been filed within the time allowed, the undersigned hereby adopts the June 3, 2015 "Report And Recommendation To Dismiss Habeas Action" (ECF No. 6) filed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. Petitioner's petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction over named Respondent, Washington State, and for failure to exhaust available state court remedies.”
“IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Ct. Rec. 10) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED the Motions for Class Certification (Ct. Rec. 4) and for Appointment of Counsel (Ct. Rec. 5) are DENIED.”
“As a result, defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 65, is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
A historical record
Judge Hutton 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.