🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Howard Frederic Sachs

United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Retired 2025 · served 1979–2025 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 16 signed orders read

Judge Sachs no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Sachs decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He applies Eighth Circuit law and predicts how the circuit would rule rather than adopting persuasive out-of-circuit exceptions. Ground jurisdictional arguments (e.g. Rooker-Feldman) in Eighth Circuit authority, not other circuits' minority rules.

“The Nesses exception to Rooker-Feldman has been unmentioned by judges in other Circuits, and I believe the Eighth Circuit would apply Rooker-Feldman rather than Nesses here.”

He credits firsthand, on-the-ground testimony over that of remote administrators, and will say plainly when a witness's distance from the facts makes the testimony unhelpful. Put witnesses with direct knowledge in front of him.

“The administrative personnel, while apparently experienced, well-motivated and competent, were so removed from in-cell conditions that their testimony was not very helpful.”

Procedural preferences

He avoids premature rulings, grounding his discretion in the constitutional bar on advisory opinions; where facts are fluid (e.g. a pending class settlement) he prefers to stay rather than dismiss, to let the issues harden. Do not press him to decide an issue that may never need an answer.

“the current situation is sufficiently fluid as to preclude judicial opining on issues that may never require an answer.”

On a preliminary injunction he applies the Dataphase factors and will deny relief where the threatened harm is not imminent, but he will pointedly warn the prevailing party that it proceeds at its own risk on the merits.

“Defendants know, however, that they proceed at their own risk, and have been dramatically alerted to the claim for equal treatment.”

Cautions

He rejects mootness-by-amendment: a defendant's voluntary repeal or change of a challenged practice does not deprive the court of power to rule on its legality. Do not assume a late amendment moots a constitutional challenge before him.

“a defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.”

He decides ineffective-assistance habeas claims on the Strickland prejudice prong and will deny relief even after criticizing counsel's performance, deferring to the state trial judge's assessment of the likely outcome. A 2254 petitioner must show prejudice, not merely deficient performance.

“without rejecting criticism of defense counsel's performance, I conclude that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must be denied.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Elgie L. Long, Sr., et al. v. Cross Reporting Service, Inc., et al.
4:01-cv-01111-HFS · 2008-03-26
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated, and for additional reasons briefed by defendants, the summary judgment motion (Doc. 112) shall be GRANTED and judgment entered in favor of defendants Funeral Directors Service, Inc., Franke & Schultz, P.C. and Cari Franke Walsh. SO ORDERED.”

Christopher Kennedy v. Mike Kemna
4:07-cv-00663-HFS · 2010-10-26
Habeas 28usc2254 (petitioner) Denied

“I conclude that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must be denied.3 The motion for relief (Doc. 1) is therefore DENIED.”

Blue Moon Entertainment, LLC v. City of Bates City, Missouri, et al.
4:04-cv-01050-HFS · 2008-09-16
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF doc. 42) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with this opinion.”

Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. v. Asurion Protection Services, LLC f/k/a Lock/Line, LLC, et al.
4:06-cv-00904-HFS · 2007-05-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“As a matter of discretion, therefore, I DENY the motion to dismiss, without prejudice to further consideration, and STAY these proceedings until counsel can report final action of the Florida trial court on the settlement agreement.”

Motions to stay (defendant) Granted
Lisa Suter, et al. v. State of Missouri, et al.
2:06-cv-04032-HFS · 2006-09-07
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons a preliminary injunction is DENIED.”

Robert Ray Young v. Allen Patel, et al.
4:08-cv-00573-HFS · 2010-09-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF doc. 16) is GRANTED.”

The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri, et al. v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al.
6:08-cv-03405 · 2009-06-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The motions to dismiss (Docs. 3 and 9) are therefore GRANTED.”

Alicia Besette, et al. v. AT&T Corporation
4:03-cv-00830-HFS · 2006-10-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motions for summary judgment and for reconsideration are GRANTED and the case is dismissed as moot. Judgment shall be entered in favor of defendant because of plaintiff's lack of standing. SO ORDERED.”

David Hembree v. Mid-Continent Transport, Inc., et al.
5:08-cv-06094-HFS · 2011-11-22
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 84) is GRANTED in favor of defendants on the claims of all plaintiffs other than David Hembree.”

Robert D. Cochran v. Dave Dormire
4:11-cv-00440-HFS · 2011-11-07
Habeas 28usc2254 (petitioner) Denied

“ORDERED that: (1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; (2) the issuance of a certificate of appealability is denied; and (3) this case is dismissed with prejudice.”

U.S. Bank National Association v. RQ Squared, L.L.C., et al.
5:06-cv-06132-HFS · 2007-07-19
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF doc. 81) is GRANTED.”

Beverly Trice v. Linda D. Friedman, et al.
4:10-cv-00740-HFS · 2010-12-06
Motion for voluntary dismissal (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to dismiss this action without prejudice (ECF doc. 27) is GRANTED each party to bear its own costs.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF doc. 7) is DENIED as moot.”

A historical record

Judge Sachs 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.