Stephan M. Vidmar
Judge Vidmar no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Vidmar decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On prisoner pro se dockets, uses the Martinez Report device and construes it as a motion for summary judgment, then recommends dismissal WITHOUT prejudice where the threshold defect is failure to exhaust PLRA administrative remedies.
“construed the Martinez Report on Behalf of Defendants Artiaga and Hohman ... as a motion for summary judgment. ... failed to exhaust his administrative remedies ... recommended granting Artiaga and Hohman's MSJ and dismissing ... without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“In the PFRD, the Honorable Stephan M. Vidmar, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended granting the Defendants' 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss No. IV: Dismissal of Count Eight of Plaintiff's Complaint Alleging Violation of Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment Right to Due Process ... the Defendants' 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss No. IV ... is granted; and ... Count VIII of the Complaint ... is dismissed with prejudice.”
“the Honorable Stephan M. Vidmar, United States Magistrate Judge, construed the Martinez Report on Behalf of Defendants Artiaga and Hohman ... as a motion for summary judgment. ... Judge Vidmar found that Plaintiff Bernest Benjamin had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies ... He therefore recommended granting Artiaga and Hohman's MSJ and dismissing Benjamin's claims against them without prejudice. ... Plaintiff Bernest Benjamin's claims against Defendants Lawrence Artiaga and Michael Hohman are dismissed without prejudice”
“In the PFRD, the Honorable Stephan M. Vidmar, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended granting the Defendants' 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss No. V: Dismissal of Count Ten of Plaintiff's Complaint Alleging Violation of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process ... Plaintiff Mark G. Bralley did not object to the PFRD. The Court will adopt the PFRD and grant the Defendants' Motion. ... Defendants' 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss No. V ... is granted; and (iii) Count X of the Complaint -- for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment ... right to due process -- is dismissed with prejudice.”
“the Honorable Stephan M. Vidmar, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended granting the requests in the Defendants' Motion and Memorandum of Law to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiffs' Complaint and for Qualified Immunity ... He recommends that the Court enter summary judgment in the Defendants' favor. ... the requests in the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ... is granted; and (iii) this action is dismissed with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 329.5 days (N = 10).
By party consent, Judge Vidmar entered final decisions in a steady stream of Social Security disability appeals under Titles II and XVI. He also wrote recommendations in prisoner civil-rights and other civil cases and, while active, carried substantial criminal and immigration duty in Las Cruces. This describes the composition of his work, not a grant rate.
A historical record
Judge Vidmar 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.