Thomas Kent Wetherell II
How Judge Wetherell rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wetherell
T. Kent Wetherell, II is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Wetherell received a commission on July 12, 2019.
Judge Wetherell's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Wetherell's own (checked October 9, 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 9, 2026).
How Judge Wetherell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In State of Florida v. Department of Homeland Security, he enforced a court-approved settlement agreement incorporated into the dismissal order. He held that breaching the agreement violated a court order within the court's retained jurisdiction.
“a breach of the settlement agreement is a violation of a court order—which the Court unquestionably has jurisdiction to address.”
In the immigration parole-policy case, he required the agency to explain its treatment of a growing case backlog and its change to the policy. He held the policy arbitrary and capricious after a bench trial and vacated it.
“The July Memo does not expressly discuss the backlog”
In Alphonse, Wetherell followed circuit precedent allowing punitive damages in prisoner litigation and denied the defendants’ effort to remove that remedy on partial summary judgment.
“the Court is bound by the implicit holding in Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F.3d 1308, 1325-26 (11th Cir. 2002), that §3626 allows recovery of punitive damages.”
Procedural preferences
In Pohlmann, he agreed with most of the magistrate judge's recommendation but also dismissed the official-capacity Eighth Amendment claims. He held that damages claims against Florida officials in their official capacities were effectively claims against the state.
“the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition of Defendants’ motions to dismiss, except his recommendation that the Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants in their official capacities can proceed.”
In Young de God v. Scharf, he reviewed the plaintiff's objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation de novo, agreed that the case was frivolous, and dismissed it with prejudice.
“The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that this case is frivolous and is due to be dismissed.”
Cautions
A prison medical-care claim that survives dismissal may still fail at summary judgment when the undisputed treatment record does not support subjective deliberate indifference. In Pohlmann, he granted both defense motions and dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice after de novo review.
“the undisputed evidence establishes that they were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical condition.”
In Derease L. Irons v. Ricky Dixon, Wetherell dismissed a prisoner's suit without prejudice as malicious abuse of process after a false litigation-history disclosure, and denied his later motion for leave to amend.
“This case is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1) for maliciousness and abuse of the judicial process.”
In Hanf v. Inch, he dismissed an untimely habeas petition with prejudice and denied a certificate of appealability. He found no record support for the petitioner's claim that COVID-19 restrictions had prevented timely filing.
“Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED; and the untimely petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.”
In de God v. Scharf, Wetherell granted Rule 11 sanctions in part and directed the clerk to reject further filings from the plaintiff unless he had counsel or obtained leave of court.
“Defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions (Doc. 17) is GRANTED in part, and the Clerk is directed not to accept any future filings from Plaintiff unless he is represented by counsel or he obtains prior leave of court.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (Doc. 64) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 61) is DENIED.”
“Respondents' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 6, as supported by the supplemental Exhibit, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED as moot since Petitioner is no longer in custody.”
“Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED; and the untimely petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions (Doc. 17) is GRANTED in part, and the Clerk is directed not to accept any future filings from Plaintiff unless he is represented by counsel or he obtains prior leave of court.”
“This case is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with an order of the court.”
“Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED as moot.”
“This case is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1) for maliciousness and abuse of the judicial process.”
“Plaintiff's 'Motion for Clarification and Leave to File an Amended Complaint' (Doc. 34) is DENIED.”
“Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is DENIED as moot.”
“Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 11, 20) are GRANTED in part, and the claim for injunctive relief and the official-capacity Eighth Amendment claims in the amended complaint are DISMISSED. The motions are otherwise DENIED, and Plaintiff’s individual-capacity Eighth Amendment claims may proceed.”
“The petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 2) is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Docs. 35, 41) are GRANTED, and the remaining claims in this case are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to enforce settlement agreement (Doc. 32) is GRANTED, and Defendants shall immediately comply with the court-approved settlement agreement in this case by reinstating Plaintiffs’ access to the bulk-upload and SSN-search features in the SAVE system.”
“LWV and EPIC’s emergency motion to intervene (Doc. 48) is GRANTED, and the Clerk shall update their status in CM/ECF from amici to intervenors.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 233.0 days (N = 16).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 30.5 days (N = 4).
- A 2021 enumeration shows a distinctive Pensacola-division N.D.
- Fla. docket: heavy prisoner civil-rights / prison conditions (42:1983) and habeas (2254 state, 2241 immigration), a notable cluster of admiralty/maritime limitation-of-liability actions ('In the Matter of the Complaint of ...': Gulf Coast boating), property/life/auto/crop insurance (Great Lakes, Unum, Progressive, Hartford, USAA, State Farm, Hudson Crop), diversity contract, RICO, employment (Title VII / FMLA / 42:1981), and high-profile APA/immigration litigation (Florida v. United States).
- Cases are referred to the division's magistrate judges for reports and recommendations.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, not for Judge Wetherell: 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 | 148,428 | 47.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 30 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 148,385 | 47.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 4 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 148,428 | 47.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 140,479 | 43.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 36,307 | 27.8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 57,845 | 21.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 14,972 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,038 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,148 | 7.5 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 Wetherell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wetherell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wetherell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace