T. Michael Putnam
Judge Putnam no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Putnam decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On pro se prisoner litigation he applies the Article III case-or-controversy and standing requirements strictly: a plaintiff's reliance on a years-old past experience, with no present or imminent injury, does not support prospective injunctive relief, and conviction-related claims belong in habeas (and are Heck-barred for damages).
“Past exposure to illegal conduct does not itself show a present case or controversy. ... Because no ‘actual controversy’ is before the court, the court is without authority to render an opinion as to the issues presented.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“This Court hereby ADOPTS the report of the Magistrate Judge ... default judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Warren Henley and against Defendants Coosa Pines Golf, LLC, Coosa Pines Maintenance, LLC, and Pat Sanford, in the amount of SEVENTY-ONE THOUSAND NINE-HUNDRED and THIRTY-SIX DOLLARS ($71,936.00), plus attorney's fees, costs, and expenses which total THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND FIVE-HUNDRED NINETY and 44/100 DOLLARS ($35,590.44).”
“Because the instant petition is moot, the magistrate judge RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as MOOT.”
“the magistrate judge RECOMMENDS that his request be DENIED. It would be plain error to permit the plaintiff, unassisted by counsel, to represent fellow inmates in a class action.”
At screening in a pro se civil-rights case, Putnam recommended dismissing the claims against the Midfield Police Department while allowing a Fourth Amendment claim against an individual officer to proceed. District Judge R. David Proctor adopted the recommendation.
“the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Walter is due to be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In doing so, the Court EXPRESSLY FINDS that there are no genuine issues of material fact showing that defendant Walter is liable to plaintiff in her official capacity ... However, the court EXPRESSLY FINDS that there are genuine issues of material fact showing that defendant Walter is liable to plaintiff in her individual capacity in that she subjected plaintiff to excessive force ... her motion for summary judgment is due to be DENIED.”
“Because the instant petition is moot, the magistrate judge RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as MOOT.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Putnam's assigned civil docket from 1999 through 2018 included product-liability and tort suits, an ERISA matter, and a prisoner habeas case, alongside short administrative matters. His broader criminal-duty and referral work is not fully represented by assigned civil cases.
A historical record
Judge Putnam 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.