Amit P. Mehta
How Judge Mehta rules, drawn from 59 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mehta
Amit Priyavadan Mehta is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Mehta received a commission on December 19, 2014.
Judge Mehta's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Mehta's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026).
How Judge Mehta decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Tekle v. Blinken, he dismissed an unreasonable-delay claim involving visa applications after balancing the TRAC factors, including the effect of moving one family ahead of other applicants.
“Considering all the factors together, Plaintiff has not stated an unreasonable-delay claim under the APA.”
In Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. Regan, he rejected the EPA’s proposed schedule for overdue rulemaking because the agency had not shown that a faster timetable was impossible.
“the relevant standard here is one of impossibility, and the EPA has not established that it would be impossible for it to finish the overdue RTR for HWCs at a quicker pace in parallel with its other responsibilities.”
Procedural preferences
In Tekle v. Blinken, he declined to consider a new theory first raised in the plaintiff's opposition brief because it was absent from the complaint.
“It is axiomatic that a complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.”
In Mabrey v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, he warned an unrepresented plaintiff about the consequences of not responding to summary judgment, treated the defendant's facts as undisputed after no response, and decided the motion on the record.
“Although the court warned Plaintiff about the possible consequences of failing to respond to WMATA's motion, see Order, ECF No. 19, he did not do so. Plaintiff therefore has not disputed any of WMATA's factual assertions.”
In a dispute over a separately filed counterclaim, he treated it as an independent claim that survived amendment of the complaint without repleading. The ruling also found no unfair prejudice from allowing it to proceed.
“‘the counterclaim shares more with a complaint’ than it does with an answer.”
In American Transparency v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, he denied both public-records summary judgment motions and called for an evidentiary hearing because competing evidence left a material dispute about whether inventor distributions exposed confidential royalty payments.
“The court therefore cannot resolve the parties’ dispute at this stage, and it will have to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve it.”
Cautions
In Mabrey v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, he granted summary judgment on an escalator injury claim after the plaintiff offered no expert evidence on staffing standards and identified no malfunction or known hazard.
“a plaintiff must put on expert testimony to establish what the standard of care is if the subject in question is so distinctly related to some science, profession or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layperson.”
In Tekle v. Blinken, he dismissed claims against federal defendants to whom the alleged visa-processing injury was not traceable.
“Because Plaintiff's injuries cannot be traced to any of these agencies, Plaintiff lacks standing as to them.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the court dismisses this action.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4, is granted and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 6, is denied as moot.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 6, is denied as moot.”
“the court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 24”
“denies Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 26”
“the court grants in part and denies Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 50.”
“The court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.”
“the court grants provisional class certification in part, denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 16, and grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 34.”
“the court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 63, and denies Relators' Motion for Leave to Amend, ECF No. 70.”
“Defendant's Motion, ECF No. 21, is denied in part, and the court does not reach the issue of lost earnings at this stage.”
“the court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13.”
“the court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11.”
“Defendants' Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 97, is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The recent pending assignments reviewed include several information-access, immigration, agency-review, and Medicare-recovery matters. This is a qualitative description of selected assignments, not a counted distribution of the judge's full caseload.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 30 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 37 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 30 | 37 |
| Sep 2025 | 52 | 39 |
| Mar 2025 | 35 | 35 |
| Sep 2024 | 54 | 30 |
| Mar 2024 | 19 | 28 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 18 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 21 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 20 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 23 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 19 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 15 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 11 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Columbia, not for Judge Mehta: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 876 | 5.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,449 | 8.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 53.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,290 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,288 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,044 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,408 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,947 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,963 | 5.1 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Mehta with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mehta, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mehta's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace