Rudolph Contreras
How Judge Contreras rules, drawn from 51 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Contreras
Rudolph Contreras is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Contreras received a commission on March 23, 2012.
Judge Contreras's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Contreras'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 Contreras decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Welsh v. Department of Justice, he independently reviewed the agency's renewed summary-judgment motion under Rule 56 despite the FOIA plaintiff's concession, then found the search adequate.
“Notwithstanding plaintiff’s concession, the Court has independently reviewed defendants’ renewed summary judgment motion through the lens of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and finds summary judgment on the search issue to be warranted.”
In Eddington v. Department of State, he reviewed withheld cables in camera, found a privacy interest under FOIA Exemption 6, and ordered release of limited portions of one cable where the public interest justified disclosure.
“After reviewing the records in camera, the Court finds that Meshal has a privacy interest in their contents, but that the public interest would be served by the release of some information in one of the cables. ... The Court therefore instructs the Department of State to release specific portions of the cable in unredacted form.”
In McGrone v. Austin III, he found venue improper in D.C. and transferred the employment case to the Eastern District of Virginia without reaching the merits.
“venue does not lie in the District of Columbia; therefore, the Court shall transfer the action to the Eastern District of Virginia.”
In EEOC v. R&R Janitorial Painting and Building Services, he denied the employer summary judgment because inconsistent criteria, shifting explanations, and decisionmaker comments created a genuine dispute about pretext.
“the Court DENIES R&R’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45)”
Procedural preferences
In Power the Future v. White House Council on Environmental Quality, he held that the plaintiff's request for an official's emails was not reasonably described under FOIA and granted the agency summary judgment.
“the Court finds that Plaintiff’s FOIA request is not reasonably described as required by the FOIA and grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”
In Welsh v. DOJ, he denied leave to add a Bivens claim to a FOIA action because the proposed claim was too different and amendment would be futile.
“The dissimilarity between a FOIA claim premised on the improper withholding of agency records and a Bivens claim premised on constitutional violations by a federal actor could not be more stark.”
In Evans v. Individual Advocacy Group, he dismissed the complaint without prejudice and gave the plaintiff until October 16, 2025, to amend because the defendant showed no prejudice from amendment at the pleading stage.
“The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint on or before October 16, 2025.”
Cautions
In Jefferson v. Austin, he denied the agency’s timeliness-based summary-judgment motion because no final agency order had started the filing deadline, without reaching tolling or estoppel.
“Because the Court holds that Jefferson’s complaint was not untimely filed in the first instance, the Court need not and does not address Jefferson’s equitable tolling or equitable estoppel arguments.”
In Nelson v. Pompeo, he denied partial dismissal without prejudice and ordered supplemental briefing on whether equitable tolling or futility excused the plaintiff’s facially unexhausted Title VII claims.
“the Court denies the Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal without prejudice and orders the parties to submit supplemental briefing within thirty days.”
Administrative-law claims do not necessarily rise or fall together: in a challenge to weighted infant sleep-product regulation, he dismissed six counts but retained the arbitrary-and-capricious APA count for review on the administrative record.
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED in part as to Counts 1–3 and 5–7, and DENIED in part as to Count 4.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Notwithstanding plaintiff’s concession, the Court has independently reviewed defendants’ renewed summary judgment motion through the lens of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and finds summary judgment on the search issue to be warranted.”
“Because plaintiff’s Bivens claim is ‘not cognizable unless and until he meets the requirements of Heck,’ ... amending the complaint would be futile.”
“As the Court will explain, venue does not lie in the District of Columbia; therefore, the Court shall transfer the action to the Eastern District of Virginia.”
“the Court denies the Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal without prejudice and orders the parties to submit supplemental briefing within thirty days.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denies Plaintiff’s cross-motion.”
“the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denies Plaintiff’s cross-motion.”
“The Secretary has filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that Jefferson did not timely file this case. ... For the reasons explained below, the Court denies the Secretary’s motion.”
“The Bells have moved to dismiss the claims against them as time-barred. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motion.”
“The Court agrees that Bell fails to state a claim for relief under § 1983 and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining D.C. law claims.”
“GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
“The Court therefore instructs the Department of State to release specific portions of the cable in unredacted form.”
“the Court finds that Plaintiff’s FOIA request is not reasonably described as required by the FOIA and grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Sampled recent assignments (filed 2026, all pending) are dominated by FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT matters (895, American Oversight v. DOJ, America First Legal Foundation v. State, Public Citizen v. CBP, FieldNotes v. OMB), with immigration (465, Razikov, Sundararajan v. DHS), environmental (893, Southeastern Fisheries Ass'n v. Lutnick), a P.I. matter (Berulis v. Musk), libel (320, Vedeneev v. Journalism Development Network), motor-vehicle (Sapp v. Lyft), a Sec.2255 habeas (Wilkins v. United States), and several criminal cases (United States v. Clark/Welch/Jacobson).
- This is a qualitative character sample, NOT a counted nature-of-suit distribution; the heavy FOIA share is consistent with the dispositive-motion published-order sample.
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 | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 25 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 25 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 27 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 24 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 25 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 23 |
| Sep 2023 | 14 | 18 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 20 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 21 |
| Mar 2022 | 14 | 14 |
| Sep 2021 | 13 | 13 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 13 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 8 |
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 Contreras: 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 Contreras with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Contreras, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Contreras's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace