Marcia Morales Howard
How Judge Howard rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Howard
Marcia Morales Howard is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Howard received a commission on February 20, 2007.
Judge Howard's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Howard, 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.
- ERISA Case Management Report ↗
- Standing Order of Judges Corrigan, Davis, and Howard Notifying Institution Regarding Inmate Claim of Suicidal Intent or Other Imminent Physical Harm ↗
Key rules
Filing
Use Judge Howard’s case-management report for ERISA actions.
“For Judge Howard’s cases, the parties shall use this Case Management Report (CMR) for actions brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. sec. 1001, et seq.”
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 Howard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Haddad, the state's fundamental-alteration defense to home-based disability services could not defeat the claim where the complaint itself alleged lower community-care costs, prolonged waiting, and no effectively moving placement plan.
“After a thorough review of Plaintiffs Complaint, the Court readily concludes that Defendants’ fundamental alteration defense is not established as a matter of law on the face of Plaintiffs Complaint.”
In Epolito, the insurer's contractual reimbursement right did not establish equitable relief without proof that the specific overpaid funds remained identifiable in the participant's possession.
“However, Prudential has not submitted any evidence that those overpaid benefits still remain in Epolito’s possession such that the Court could impose an equitable lien on those particular funds.”
In Beane, Howard upheld leaving a complex tax dispute with the specialized court where it had been pending for more than a year and was ready for trial when bankruptcy was filed.
“At the time Beane filed for bankruptcy, the tax court proceeding had been pending for over one year and was set to go to trial in seven days.”
In Crisp, the defendant's lack of a legitimate privacy interest in a rental van resolved suppression before the court needed to reach abandonment or inventory-search validity.
“As the Court finds that Defendant never had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle, it is not necessary for the Court to consider the other arguments raised by the government and Defendant.”
In a Chapter 13 attorney-fee appeal, the court required the bankruptcy judge to clarify the legal standard behind fee awards before appellate review could proceed.
“upon review of the Combined Order, the Court cannot determine how the bankruptcy court arrived at the fees awarded in these cases.”
In Flores-Castro, the court held that a detainee released on bond and later taken into custody in the interior was governed by the interior detention provision, then ordered release because the government asserted no other lawful basis.
“for this detention, Flores-Castro is entitled to immediate release.”
In a prolonged post-removal detention case, the court required evidence that removal to a third country was realistically possible. The government had shown no contact with that country or travel documents, so she ordered release.
“The Federal Respondent has not provided any evidence to suggest that ICE has actually communicated with Mexico or any other third country regarding Jerena-Blanco.”
In Guardado, Howard denied a proposed intervenor’s stay request where she found his execution-protocol claim barred by prior state litigation and delayed. The pending plaintiff’s separate claim was not decided in that order.
“because the elements of res judicata have been satisfied, Reaves has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.”
Procedural preferences
In Howard v. Hartford, Howard allowed relevant employee-benefits discovery before summary judgment and declined to fragment the case into a premature, potentially wasteful sequence of rulings.
“summary judgment should not be granted until the party opposing the motion has had an adequate opportunity for discovery.”
In McWhite, the court dismissed a self-represented plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice after twice explaining its pleading defects and allowing corrections.
“nothing less than dismissal will suffice.”
For an immigration detention petition, she required the petitioner to finish an available administrative bond appeal before seeking habeas relief; the dismissal was without prejudice.
“Therefore, the Petition is due to be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust.”
In Winford, Howard denied a dismissal motion without prejudice as premature because the plaintiff’s deadline to submit a corrected complaint had not passed. The motion also lacked the required conferral certificate.
“Defendants’ Motion is due to be denied as premature.”
In Milian, Howard found the detention-duration claim premature because the petitioner had not spent six consecutive months in custody after his removal order, while declining to treat each later detention as an automatic reset of the clock.
“The Court is not persuaded that the presumptively reasonable period of detention restarts with each new detention in every circumstance.”
In Tsarionova, Howard ordered release after the government conceded entitlement to a bond hearing. The petitioner had been moved to Texas, whose circuit precedent made that hearing uncertain.
“Texas is located in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which unlike the Eleventh Circuit, has concluded that petitioners, like Tsarionova, are not entitled to bond hearings.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Heartland Dental, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint ... (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. a. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that Count Two of the Amended Complaint ... is DISMISSED. b. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Diamond State Insurance Company's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50) is DENIED, in part, and DENIED without prejudice, in part. A. The Motion is DENIED with respect to Diamond State's duty to defend.”
“Boys' Home Association, Inc.'s ... Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED without prejudice, in part. A. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent the Court declares that Diamond State owes Boys' Home a duty to defend in the Underlying Action.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 25) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Transfer Venue and Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 7) is DENIED.”
“The Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants Joshua Gilliland and Chawalit Wongkhiao (Doc. 53) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendant DB & PR's Motion to Dismiss Counts III and V of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART. A. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks the dismissal of Count III for false arrest under Florida law. B. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.”
“Defendant Baker's Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART. A. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks the dismissal of Count II for false arrest under Florida law. B. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 49) is DENIED, as moot.”
“Defendant's Motion to Strike Affidavit of David C. Hicks (Doc. 73) is DENIED, as moot.”
“Defendant's Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. 65) is GRANTED.”
“J.P. Morgan Chase National Corporate Services, Inc.'s Renewed Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 73) is GRANTED to the extent that J.P. Morgan Chase National Corporate Services, Inc. seeks dismissal of the Beepots' Amended Complaint.”
“Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Amend the Complaint Signed by Each Plaintiff (Doc. 107) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Gerald L. Ford's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant City of Lake City's Motion for Summary Judgment (A Dispositive Motion) and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 34) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 28) is DENIED.”
“the Court has found that the arguments presented in Estrada's Motions do not warrant the requested relief.”
“the Court has found that Estrada's New Trial Motion is denied.”
“T-Mobile USA, Inc.'s Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration (Doc. 9) is GRANTED and this case is STAYED pending the completion of arbitration.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 277.5 days (N = 14).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 39.5 days (N = 6).
As Chief Judge, her most recent reviewed filings are dominated by a 2026 increase in alien-detainee habeas petitions from the Baker County and North Florida detention facilities, alongside copyright, employment, and civil-rights cases. This recent group provides descriptive context rather than a complete caseload measure.
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 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, not for Judge Howard: 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 Howard with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Howard, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Howard's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace