John T. Rodgers
Judge Rodgers no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Rodgers decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In prisoner First Amendment religious-exercise claims, he required a showing that a facility restriction actually prevented a specific religious practice, and accepted a legitimate penological-safety justification (here, restricting cleansing rituals to a designated area) as defeating the claim at summary judgment.
“Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice, thus concluding this action in its entirety.”
On detention reconsideration in drug cases, he treated the raw quantity of contraband as weighing toward continued detention even where the defendant was not alleged to be a leader, but would credit medical disability, long community tenure, and a nearly clean record enough to overcome that presumption when the government could not show danger by clear and convincing evidence.
“The Court, having considered the proffers of Defendant and Plaintiff, and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142, finds the United States has not met its burden and shown by a preponderance that no combination of conditions will reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance for further proceedings, and by clear and convincing evidence that no combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community if Defendant is released pending trial.”
Procedural preferences
He routinely granted unopposed or stipulated pretrial-release modifications (travel, curfew, bond amount) with minimal analysis once the government and U.S. Probation confirmed no objection, but required a specific showing of changed circumstances when the government did object to lifting a condition like electronic monitoring.
“The court finds that conditions have not significantly changed from the time the condition of electronic home monitoring was determined appropriate and, therefore, The Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release by removing the requirement of electronic home monitoring, ECF NO. 735, is DENIED.”
In consented Social Security appeals he wrote a standard jurisdiction/statement-of-facts structure before reaching the merits, and was as willing to affirm the agency as to remand, closely tracking whether the ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting a claimant's testimony or a medical opinion.
“The Court agrees that the R & R, ECF No. 18 at 12-15, identifies specific, clear, and convincing reasons that supported the ALJ's treatment of Plaintiff's symptom testimony.”
Cautions
He enforced the second-or-successive habeas gatekeeping rule strictly even against a pro se petitioner's lengthy, disorganized submission, recommending transfer to the court of appeals rather than reaching the merits.
“This Court lacks authority to review second or successive habeas petitions filed without authorization from the Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2244(b)(3)(A).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 37, be GRANTED.”
“After reviewing the administrative record and briefs filed by the parties, the court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“After reviewing the administrative record and the briefs filed by the parties, the court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“After reviewing the administrative record and briefs filed by the parties, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and remands the matter to the Commissioner for additional proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g).”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is ADOPTED in its entirety and the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to seeking appropriate remedies in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.”
Rodgers recommended transferring a successive, unauthorized habeas petition to the Ninth Circuit. No party motion was pending, so the entry reflects a recommendation on the petition rather than a motion ruling.
“The Court, having considered the proffers of Defendant and Plaintiff, and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142, finds the United States has not met its burden and shown by a preponderance that no combination of conditions will reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance for further proceedings, and by clear and convincing evidence that no combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community if Defendant is released pending trial. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED Defendant's Motion, ECF No. 166, is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Modify, ECF No. 193, as well as the Motion to Expedite, ECF No. 194, are GRANTED.”
“Having reviewed Defendant's record of compliance with conditions of release, and understanding that neither the United States Attorney's office or the Office of Pretrial Services have objected to the motion, and finding good cause therefore, the Motion is Granted.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion, ECF No. 111, is GRANTED. The Order Setting Conditions of Release, ECF NO. 78, is hereby amended so that paragraph 11 shall provide for a $20,000 percentage bond, with a cash deposit of $2,000.00 with the Clerk of the Court, instead of the $75,000.00 percentage bond originally ordered.”
“For the reasons stated in court, Defendant's Motion is DENIED. Electronic monitoring shall remain in place for the time being.”
“The court finds that conditions have not significantly changed from the time the condition of electronic home monitoring was determined appropriate and, therefore, The Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release by removing the requirement of electronic home monitoring, ECF NO. 735, is DENIED.”
A historical record
Judge Rodgers 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.