Gary M. Purcell
Judge Purcell no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Purcell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Dismisses official-capacity 1983 claims on Eleventh Amendment/jurisdictional grounds while letting plausibly-pleaded individual-capacity retaliation and excessive-force claims survive; on screening, dismisses claims against states (not 'persons' under 1983) and against public defenders (not state actors).
“neither the State of Arkansas nor the State of Oklahoma is properly named as a Defendant by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment nor is either a 'person' for purposes of 1983 liability.”
Procedural preferences
Declines to convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into summary judgment to reach a failure-to-exhaust defense where the movant ignored the court's instruction to raise exhaustion through a limited summary-judgment motion -- keeping the more plaintiff-favorable pleading standard.
“the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 32) is ADOPTED as modified. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 27) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Cautions
His recommendations did not become final district-court dispositions until an Article III judge reviewed and adopted them; the reviewed orders expressly identify that adoption step.
“the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 7] is ADOPTED as set forth herein.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 32) is ADOPTED as modified. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 27) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ... Plaintiff's official-capacity claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) ... Plaintiff's individual-capacity claims remain pending for disposition.”
During sua sponte preliminary screening under Section 1915A, Purcell recommended dismissing without prejudice a pro se pretrial detainee's Section 1983 complaint because the state defendants, Arkansas and Oklahoma, were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and were not 'persons' under Section 1983, and the public-defender defendant did not act under color of state law. District Judge David L. Russell adopted the recommendation over the plaintiff's objection and dismissed the case without prejudice. This screening disposition did not resolve an adversarial party motion.
On in forma pauperis screening, Purcell's R&R recommended denying the application because the plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay the $400 fee. The plaintiff paid during the objection period, so District Judge Charles Goodwin adopted the recommendation and denied the application as moot.
On in forma pauperis screening under Section 1915(b), Purcell's R&R recommended dismissal without prejudice for a pro se prisoner's failure to pay a $2.32 initial partial filing fee. District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti adopted the recommendation as modified, credited evidence of timely but delayed trust-account disbursement attempts, and gave the prisoner 21 more days to pay before dismissal. The order illustrates a screening recommendation narrowed by the district judge.
A historical record
Judge Purcell 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.