Julie S. Sneed
How Judge Sneed rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sneed
Julie Simone Sneed is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Sneed received a commission on March 4, 2024.
Judge Sneed's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Sneed, 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
Discovery
Before a civil discovery motion, confer substantively with opposing counsel in person or by telephone; email alone does not satisfy the conference requirement.
“The term ‘confer’ in Local Rule 3.01(g) requires a substantive conversation in person or by telephone in a good-faith effort to resolve the motion without court action. Exchanges of email or other correspondence do not satisfy the good-faith conference requirement.”
Conferences
File exhibit and witness lists three business days before an evidentiary hearing.
“For evidentiary hearings, exhibit lists and witness lists must be filed three business days in advance of the scheduled hearing date.”
Trial
For jury trials, file proposed voir dire questions, jury instructions, and special verdict forms three business days before trial.
“For jury trials, proposed voir dire questions, proposed jury instructions, and any special verdict forms should be filed three business days in advance of the scheduled trial date.”
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 10, 2026).
How Judge Sneed decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rosado, Sneed affirmed the disability denial after finding that the ALJ properly considered the treating psychologist’s medical opinion and that substantial evidence supported the decision.
“Upon consideration, the court finds that the ALJ properly considered Dr. Springer’s medical opinion evidence and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.”
In Capital One v. Bloom, she remanded the removed action to state court after finding the asserted basis for federal jurisdiction insufficient and resolving doubts in favor of remand.
“All doubts must be resolved in favor of remand.”
In Villarroel v. Warden, she dismissed the prisoner's First Step Act time-credit petition because a documented final removal order made him ineligible to apply the credits to his sentence.
“The final order of removal renders Petitioner ineligible to apply FSA credits to his sentence.”
In Jelleyman, Sneed denied suppression after finding an airport phone search fell within the border search exception, reasonable suspicion supported the later inspection if required, and the brief delay before forensic analysis was reasonable in context.
“The totality of the circumstances indicates that the brief delay did not render the search unreasonable.”
Procedural preferences
In Capital One v. Bloom, she denied the defendant's motion to stay proceedings because the movant had not shown good cause for a stay.
“Courts in this circuit have noted that motions to stay are not favored because delays 'can create case management problems which impede the Court's responsibility to expedite discovery' ... no good cause has been shown warranting a stay of this case.”
In Badilla Meza v. Nunez Reyes, she granted an ICARA temporary restraining order in part but declined to issue a warrant to remove the child from custody because the petitioner's assertions did not satisfy the statutory showing.
“Petitioner's conclusory assertions are not sufficient to warrant the arrest of the Child and removal of the Child from Respondent's custody.”
In Cooper’s First Step Act case, Sneed denied a meritless habeas petition without deciding the disputed administrative-exhaustion issue.
“Because the amended petition is meritless, the exhaustion requirement is not discussed.”
Cautions
In Roman, Sneed denied the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction because it did not comply with Middle District of Florida Local Rule 6.02.
“Plaintiff's request for Preliminary Injunction is denied for failure to comply with the provisions of Middle District of Florida Local Rule 6.02.”
In Gully v. Warden, she dismissed a Section 2241 petition attacking a federal sentence for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner had not established that the Section 2255 saving clause applied.
“Because Petitioner fails to demonstrate the applicability of the saving clause, this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate his § 2241 petition on the merits.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Petitioner's Verified Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED. ... This case is REMANDED to the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange and Osceola Counties, Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c).”
“ENDORSED ORDER denying 14 Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings. ... no good cause has been shown warranting a stay of this case.”
“Any pending motions are DENIED as moot and the Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all deadlines and close this case.”
“As the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision was based on substantial evidence and employed proper legal standards, the decision is affirmed.”
“ORDER granting 14 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand. The Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further administrative proceedings.”
“ORDER granting 17 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand. The Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further administrative proceedings.”
“The final order of removal renders Petitioner ineligible to apply FSA credits to his sentence. ... The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“The final order of removal renders Petitioner ineligible to apply FSA credits to his sentence. ... The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“Because Petitioner fails to demonstrate the applicability of the saving clause, this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate his § 2241 petition on the merits. ... the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 3) is DISMISSED.”
“The motion (Dkt. 2) is DENIED.”
“Petitioners’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. 3) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 173.5 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 176.5 days (N = 34).
- During Sneed's service as a magistrate judge from 2015 through 2024, her sampled cases were dominated by consent Social Security appeals, along with FLSA, employment-discrimination, and diversity insurance and contract matters.
- Since becoming a district judge in 2024, she has handled a general civil and criminal docket that includes civil-rights cases, habeas petitions, Hague Convention matters, consumer-credit disputes, diversity actions, immigration mandamus cases, and trademark litigation.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Middle District of Florida, not for Judge Sneed: 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 | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 49 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,492 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 319 | 14.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 36 | 24.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,115 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,777 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,781 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,749 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,392 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 6,830 | 5.7 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 Sneed with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sneed, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sneed's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace