John Baylor Nalbandian
How Judge Nalbandian decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Resolves cases on the narrowest available ground -- frequently Article III standing -- before reaching constitutional merits. In Friends of George's he vacated a facial-unconstitutionality judgment without deciding the First Amendment question because the plaintiff had not established standing.
“FOG did not meet its burden to show standing, so we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions to DISMISS.”
Textualist: reads statutory terms in their full statutory context rather than in the abstract. In Salazar he confined the VPPA's 'consumer'/'subscriber' to those who subscribe to audio-visual goods or services, so a generic newsletter subscription did not trigger the Act.
“since he did not subscribe to ‘audio visual materials,’ the district court held that he was not a ‘consumer’ and dismissed the complaint. We agree and so AFFIRM.”
Skeptical of conclusory pleading, especially against government supervisors and officials -- in his Venema dissent he would have granted a prison warden qualified immunity because the complaint asserted she 'knew' subordinates were giving suicidal inmates plastic bags without any supporting fact (no admonishment, no cover-up, no pattern of past incidents).
“Even on a motion to dismiss, merely saying something doesn't make it so.”
Procedural preferences
Even when affirming the bottom line he will correct the analytical path -- e.g. recognizing a plaintiff's standing on a Fourth Amendment claim before rejecting it on the merits (Herschfus), and reviving some claims while affirming dismissal of others (Heyward). Disposition is issue-by-issue, not all-or-nothing.
“We find that Herschfus does have standing to bring his Fourth Amendment claim, but that it doesn't succeed on the merits. His Equal Protection claim also fails. So we affirm.”
Treats forfeiture on appeal strictly -- authoring the panel's own holding in Bard v. Brown County, he held an appellant must actually brief a claim's elements, facts, and legal standard in the opening brief, rejecting the idea that a single stray sentence elsewhere in the brief preserves an independent claim.
“Developed argument requires more than a twenty-two-word half-sentence that fails to mention the claim by name, cite the legal standard, or apply that standard to the facts of the case.”
Cautions
Dissents from denials of qualified immunity more often than he authors them -- across this sample he wrote 4 separate dissents (Venema v. West, Meadows v. City of Walker, Campbell v. Cheatham County, Bledsoe v. TVA) plus a solo concurrence in the judgment (Shanaberg), consistently pressing that no case gave the specific, on-point notice the Supreme Court demands, even when he agrees a constitutional violation may have occurred.
“it was not clearly established what level of ‘verbal belligerence’ could justify a taser's use.”
Wary of extending remedies -- like the exclusionary rule -- to a party whose own rights were not violated, reasoning in Russell that doing so costs the judicial system's integrity more than it deters police misconduct.
“Allowing Russell to benefit from the exclusionary rule when none of his rights were violated would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“FOG did not meet its burden to show standing, so we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions to DISMISS.”
“But since he did not subscribe to ‘audio visual materials,’ the district court held that he was not a ‘consumer’ and dismissed the complaint. We agree and so AFFIRM.”
“The district court dismissed Heyward's claims. We affirm in part and reverse in part.”
“We find that Herschfus does have standing to bring his Fourth Amendment claim, but that it doesn't succeed on the merits. His Equal Protection claim also fails. So we affirm.”
“On appeal, Shepherd argues that he was indigent at sentencing, making him ineligible for the JVTA assessment. We disagree and AFFIRM.”
“Eric Scott Ruska appeals his sentence of life imprisonment to the extent that the district court imposed it under the federal three strikes statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c). For the following reasons, we affirm.”
“Thus, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment that Olagues cannot proceed pro se and REMAND to the district court to give Olagues the opportunity to retain counsel.”
“He contends that the district court's finding was erroneous. We affirm.”
“Because of Monea's failure to demonstrate prejudice, we affirm the decision denying habeas relief on this issue.”
“For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the district court's decision to reinstate Richardson's original sentence.”
“We dismiss the appeal without addressing the merits.”
“We AFFIRM the district court's decision granting summary judgment to Nissan.”
Put Judge Nalbandian's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Nalbandian actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Nalbandian's own signed orders and cites them.