Amanda Maxfield Green
How Judge Green decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion she assesses the complaint alone and disregards new factual assertions a pro se plaintiff raises only in responses or his own motions, while still liberally construing the pleading -- but does not act as the litigant's advocate or manufacture arguments.
“the magistrate judge correctly stated that '[t]he court's function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the plaintiff's complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim' ... the magistrate judge properly 'ignored any new factual assertions Plaintiff include[d] in his own motions and his responses to the Defendants' motions.'”
Applies Younger abstention to a 2254 petition while parallel state post-conviction proceedings are pending, and rejects the argument that a McGirt jurisdictional challenge creates an exception excusing exhaustion -- dismissing (not staying) where the same claims are being pursued in state court and no damages claims exist.
“United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield Green ... recommends that Petitioner Franklin Savoy Combs's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 be dismissed under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), that Respondent's motion to dismiss be denied as moot”
Procedural preferences
In multi-defendant pro se suits she resolves the whole field of motions in one omnibus R&R -- granting the meritorious Rule 12(b)(6)/56 motions, recommending sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of unserved/unappearing defendants, and separately denying collateral motions (sanctions, strike, default judgment) rather than blending them.
“she recommended the following motions be granted ... [eight defendant motions] ... The magistrate judge further recommended dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Toledo, Easter, and Powers, and denying the following motions: Defendant Stewart's Motion for Sanctions ... Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment”
Cautions
When a party objects to one of her recommendations, the district judge conducts de novo review of the challenged portions; in Maldonado Castillo, that review resulted in adoption of her omnibus recommendation in full.
“the Court, having conducted a de novo review, finds that Plaintiff's objection should be overruled, and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 68] in its entirety.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Stewart's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Gourley's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 22] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Callaway's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 24] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Bondurant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 26] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Palomar's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 37] is GRANTED; ... Defendant OCCJA's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 39] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Turn Key's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 41] is GRANTED; ... Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant CJ's Bail Bonds' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 16] is GRANTED;”
“the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 19] for the reasons stated therein and DISMISSES this action without prejudice consistent with Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ... The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.”
“All other pending motions [Doc. Nos. 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18] are DENIED as moot.”
During 28 U.S.C. 1915 screening, Green granted the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed him to pay an $18 initial partial filing fee. When he did not pay or show cause, her May 31, 2022 report and recommendation proposed dismissal without prejudice to refiling. District Judge Stephen P. Friot adopted the unobjected recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice. This administrative screening disposition did not resolve an adversarial party motion.
“the undersigned recommends that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s Second Amended Motion for Default Judgment by Plaintiff As Against Defendant USA Aircraft Brokers, Inc., Only (Doc. 75) and DISMISS this action without prejudice as to Defendant USA Aircraft Brokers, Inc.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the court DENY Plaintiff’s Applications for Leave to Proceed IFP (Doc. 1, 7).”
“the undersigned recommends that the court deny Petitioner’s Application for Leave to Proceed IFP (Doc. 2).”
With no adversary motion pending, Green recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after a pro se civil-rights plaintiff failed to pay the initial partial filing fee despite an extension. She wrote: "the undersigned recommends that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice to the re-filing for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the initial partial filing fee."
With no adversary motion pending, Green recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after a Section 2241 petitioner failed to pay the filing fee or submit a pauper application despite extensions. She wrote: "For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS this case without prejudice to the re-filing."
With no adversary motion pending, Green recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after a pro se civil-rights plaintiff failed to cure pauper-application deficiencies. She wrote: "the undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order (Doc. 5) warrants a recommendation that the Court DISMISS this action without prejudice to the re-filing."
Put Judge Green's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Green actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Green's own signed orders and cites them.