Timothy J. Kelly
How Judge Kelly rules, drawn from 50 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kelly
Timothy James Kelly is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Kelly received a commission on September 8, 2017.
Judge Kelly's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kelly, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
A motion to seal must explain the sealing basis, address possible redactions, and attach each document to be sealed separately.
“Any motion for leave to file under seal shall: (1) explain why sealing specific information is justified in light of the factors set forth in United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980); (2) propose redactions or explain why redactions are sufficiently impracticable to outweigh the presumption of public access; and (3) include as a separate exhibit each document sought to be sealed.”
Motions
Seek time extensions by motion at least four days before the deadline, or explain why that timing was impossible.
“Such motions shall be filed at least four days prior to the deadline at issue and conform with the requirements set forth in this section. If a party cannot comply with this four-day requirement, it shall explain why it cannot do so in its motion.”
Discovery
Consult opposing counsel and obtain leave before filing a discovery motion.
“The parties shall not file a discovery motion without prior consultation with opposing counsel, and without leave of Court.”
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 Kelly decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Merit Health River Region v. Becerra, he upheld the Provider Reimbursement Review Board’s dismissal of two Medicare reimbursement appeals after the provider missed final-position-paper deadlines. He found no basis to set aside the Board’s refusal to reinstate the appeals on the representative’s illness and death explanation, and granted the Secretary summary judgment.
“The parties now cross-move for summary judgment. For the reasons below, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion and deny Plaintiff’s.”
In Razzak v. Excalibur Associates, he denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration of Title VII claims because the collective-bargaining agreement did not clearly and unmistakably require those statutory claims to enter its grievance process.
“because that agreement does not clearly and unmistakably require employees to submit Title VII claims to the grievance process, the Court will deny Excalibur’s motion to compel arbitration.”
In Turpin v. District of Columbia, he considered body-worn-camera footage incorporated by reference in the complaint on a Rule 12(c) motion without converting it to summary judgment.
“because the footage is ‘incorporated by reference in[] the complaint itself,’ the Court may do so ‘without converting the motion for judgment on the pleadings to one for summary judgment.’”
Procedural preferences
In Jones v. District of Columbia, he dismissed the plaintiff’s case without prejudice for failure to prosecute after mail to her addresses was returned and she did not oppose the motion or update her address.
“‘District courts have inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or otherwise comply with a court order.’ ... Accordingly, the Court will, in a separate order, dismiss this case without prejudice for want of prosecution.”
In Browder v. Esper, he denied the plaintiff's summary-judgment motion without prejudice after it was filed at the same time as the opposition to the Secretary's dismissal motion.
“it will also deny without prejudice Browder’s motion for summary judgment, which he filed simultaneously with his opposition to the Secretary’s motion.”
When visa applicants covered by an existing certified class sought an overlapping emergency order, Kelly directed the relief question to the court administering that class injunction. He denied the separate request and dismissed the duplicate case to avoid conflicting remedies.
“principles of equity and comity strongly favor denying Plaintiffs the particularized relief they seek.”
Cautions
In Browder v. Esper, he denied a mootness motion because the plaintiff continued to seek relief beyond the backdated promotion already awarded.
“The Court agrees with Browder on both fronts, so it will deny the Secretary’s motion to dismiss.”
In Beaulieu v. Holder, he granted the employer summary judgment on a retaliation claim because the record did not support pretext or a retaliatory termination.
“On the record here, no reasonable jury could find that Beaulieu was the victim of retaliation. She has pointed to no evidence that Defendant’s reason for firing her was pretextual, or that her termination was otherwise retaliatory.”
In the press credential case, he found that the asserted national security reason for revoking passes lacked a specific connection to information identified in the record.
“Defendants do not even bother to identify what specific information in any of these ‘reporting incidents’ was allegedly classified or sensitive.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The parties now cross-move for summary judgment. For the reasons below, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion and deny Plaintiff’s.”
“the Court will grant Defendant’s motion and deny Plaintiff’s.”
“And because that agreement does not clearly and unmistakably require employees to submit Title VII claims to the grievance process, the Court will deny Excalibur’s motion to compel arbitration.”
“Reviewing that Report and Recommendation de novo, the Court rejects it and concludes that Defendants’ position on whether the foreign affairs function exception to the notice-and-comment requirement applied, though incorrect, was substantially justified. Thus, Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover attorney’s fees.”
“Because the Court agrees that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and Helix Electric is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it will grant Helix Electric’s motion.”
“Ultimately, the Court agrees with Defendants that her remaining claims must be dismissed. ... So the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.”
“For the reasons below, the Court will grant the motion and enter judgment for Defendants.”
“The R&R recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiffs’ motion. ... the Court will adopt the R&R and, as it proposes, enter judgment for Defendant.”
“the Court will adopt the R&R and, as it proposes, enter judgment for Defendant.”
“Because the undisputed facts show that Barnes’s lawsuit is untimely, the Court will grant the motion.”
“The Court agrees with Browder on both fronts, so it will deny the Secretary’s motion to dismiss.”
“But it will also deny without prejudice Browder’s motion for summary judgment, which he filed simultaneously with his opposition to the Secretary’s motion.”
“The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment on this remaining count. ... the Court will grant Defendant’s motion and deny Beaulieu’s.”
“the Court will grant Defendant’s motion and deny Beaulieu’s.”
Pro se civil-forfeiture-practices suit. A defendant's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment was pending, but the court did not reach it: the plaintiff's mail was repeatedly returned undeliverable and she failed to keep her address updated or respond, so the court dismissed sua sponte for want of prosecution under its inherent power. This non-motion disposition did not decide the pending merits motion. Grounding quote: 'the Court will, in a separate order, dismiss this case without prejudice for want of prosecution.'
“the Court will grant the U.S. Attorney’s and CSOSA’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction”
“grant MedStar’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Recent sampled assignments include public-records and agency-review disputes, immigration, employment, antitrust, ERISA, consumer credit, and commercial cases. This is a qualitative description of selected dockets rather than a counted distribution of all assignments.
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 29 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 29 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 31 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 25 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 26 |
| Mar 2024 | 8 | 23 |
| Sep 2023 | 13 | 24 |
| Mar 2023 | 15 | 24 |
| Sep 2022 | 17 | 25 |
| Mar 2022 | 22 | 23 |
| Sep 2021 | 24 | 23 |
| Mar 2021 | 29 | 19 |
| Sep 2020 | 32 | 17 |
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 Kelly: 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 Kelly with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kelly, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kelly's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace