Jean-Paul Boulee
How Judge Boulee rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Boulee
Jean-Paul Boulee is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Boulee received a commission on June 14, 2019.
Judge Boulee's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Boulee, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Standing Order Re Civil Litigation ↗
- Civil Qualifying Jury Questions ↗
- Civil Background Jury Questionnaire ↗
- Criminal Qualifying Jury Questions ↗
- Criminal Background Jury Questionnaire ↗
Key rules
Motions
Move for a page-limit extension at least five days before the filing deadline.
“Parties seeking an extension of the page limit must do so at least five days in advance of their filing deadline”
Discovery
Present discovery disputes to the court before filing a discovery motion.
“The Court requires parties to submit their discovery disputes to the Court before filing discovery motions”
Discovery
Confer by telephone or in person before bringing a discovery dispute to the court.
“Counsel or pro se litigants are required to confer, by telephone or in person, in good faith before bringing a discovery dispute to the 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 9, 2026).
How Judge Boulee decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On qualified immunity, Boulee asks whether a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed; conflicting evidence or a possible defense does not defeat arguable probable cause by itself.
“So long as it is reasonable to conclude from the body of evidence as a whole that a crime was committed, the presence of some conflicting evidence or a possible defense will not vitiate a finding of probable cause.”
At summary judgment, he treats claims or arguments not supported in the briefing as abandoned and does not construct an argument for the party.
“A passing reference to an issue in a brief is not enough, and the failure to make arguments and cite authorities in support of an issue waives it... it is not the role of the district court to distill from the record and then consider arguments that the party could have made.”
In the September 2026 Battle phone-search ruling, Boulee denied suppression after finding the challenged affidavit statements unnecessary to establish probable cause for the later warrant.
“probable cause to support the 2024 Warrant can be independently established without the challenged statements.”
Procedural preferences
In Dio Medical v. RC3 Innovations, Boulee dismissed a diversity complaint that did not identify the citizenship of every member of the defendant limited-liability company, while allowing time to amend.
“merely alleging the location of formation or the principal place of business is not sufficient to show citizenship of a limited liability company... only stating where a defendant is not a citizen is not enough.”
In one suit by a self-represented plaintiff, Boulee dismissed the deficient amended complaints without prejudice and gave the plaintiff a final, 21-day opportunity to plead a specific claim.
“Before dismissing this case with prejudice and because Plaintiff has not given any indication that he does not wish to amend his Complaint, the Court will grant Plaintiff a final opportunity to amend.”
In LifeBrite Laboratories v. Blue Cross, he dismissed one insurer defendant without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction because the amended complaint alleged no Georgia contacts linking that defendant to the forum.
“Because Plaintiffs failed to offer any contacts between Elevance and Georgia to which specific jurisdiction could attach or any facts showing that Elevance purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Georgia, the Court finds that the allegations in the FAC do not support the exercise of specific jurisdiction over Elevance.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 53] is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.”
“Given that Battle's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED in its entirety, the Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.”
“Accordingly, B.T.'s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 13] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 4] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“The Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. 5] is GRANTED. The First Amended Complaint [Doc. 2] is DISMISSED. The Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 17] is GRANTED. The Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 8] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“All other pending motions, [Doc. 10]; [Doc. 13]; [Doc. 18]; [Doc. 22], are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 3] is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Tillman’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 50] is DENIED.”
“Defendant Clayton County’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 53] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against Defendant Clayton County only is DISMISSED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Phoenix’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 27] and Konkordia’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 31] are GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case.”
“In light of Plaintiff’s obligation to file an amended complaint, Defendants’ motions to dismiss [Docs. 46, 48, 50, 52, 65, 69, 98] and Defendant Premiere’s Motion for Leave to File Matters Under Seal in supplement to its Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 99] are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“In sum, NSM’s Motion (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED with respect to Counts One and Five and DENIED with respect to Count Two. Gordon is granted leave to amend Count Two of the Complaint.”
“For the reasons stated above, this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of standing. Intervenors’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 66] is thus DENIED as moot. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.”
“For the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as Untimely [Doc. 7] is GRANTED. This action is HEREBY DISMISSED as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 846 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 188 days (N = 4).
- The reviewed matters, including his earliest cases filed in 2018, span employment, consumer-credit, wage-and-hour, civil-rights, insurance, contract, diversity, and prisoner disputes.
- Magistrate judges appearing in the reviewed matters include Catherine M.
- Salinas, Russell G. Vineyard, Christopher C.
- Bly, Regina Diane Cannon, John K.
- Larkins III, J. Elizabeth McBath, John H.
- Rains IV, and Anna W. Howard.
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 3 |
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 Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division), not for Judge Boulee: 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 | 6,703 | 4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 640 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 4,138 | 1.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,901 | 11.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 31.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,703 | 4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,190 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 8,614 | 13.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 5,403 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 4,908 | 6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 4,463 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 4,954 | 6.2 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 Boulee with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Boulee, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Boulee's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace