Charles Joseph Williams
How Judge Williams rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Williams
Charles Joseph Williams is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Williams received a commission on September 10, 2018.
Judge Williams's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Williams, 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.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Copy the judicial assistant, counsel of record, and unrepresented parties on email to Judge Williams, except for permissible ex parte messages.
“When emailing Judge Williams, copy in his judicial assistant along with all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties”
Motions
For an urgent continuance, call the judicial assistant and try to file a written motion at the same time.
“If the request is on short notice and urgent, call Judge Williams’ judicial assistant and try to simultaneously file a written motion”
Motions
Put an oral argument request in both the caption and conclusion and show good cause.
“A request for oral argument must be noted separately in both the caption and the conclusion of the motion or resistance to the motion and must be supported by a showing of good cause.”
Trial
Submit sentencing character letters through defense counsel as exhibits, not directly to chambers.
“they must be submitted through defense counsel as exhibits to ensure they are properly part of the record. Judge Williams will not read or consider character letters sent to his chambers directly”
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 Williams decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Nunes v. Lizza, Williams dismissed all but one alleged defamatory statement, allowing the claim that the defendants falsely accused plaintiffs of knowingly employing undocumented workers to proceed.
“This case will proceed forward based only on a claim that defendants defamed plaintiffs by falsely alleging that they knowingly employed undocumented workers.”
In Nunes v. Lizza, he struck immaterial and inflammatory allegations on his own motion under Rule 12(f) and ordered the plaintiffs to file a revised complaint without them.
“Thus, the Court will, as part of this order, require plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. That amended complaint should be stripped of all such spurious allegations ...”
In Spreitzer Properties, LLC v. Travelers Corp., he read the diversity and removal statutes together and rejected the proposed snap removal before an in-state defendant was served.
“the Court finds it must read all the statutes addressing diversity of citizenship jurisdiction together to arrive at a proper interpretation of Section 1441(b)(2) to avoid an absurd result.”
In United States v. Handley, he found that a police dog's nose briefly entering the vehicle was an unlawful search but denied suppression after separately finding probable cause independent of that intrusion.
“There is no doubt that a physical intrusion or trespass occurred. ... Lara is an instrumentality of the police, and the government conducted a warrantless, unreasonable search by allowing Lara to insert her nose inside defendant's open vehicle window”
Mandamus did not lie where the requested immigration enforcement action remained discretionary and the state prisoner had another vehicle for challenging his sentence; an executive-order policy did not itself create a clear judicially enforceable right.
“Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to issue a writ of mandamus as it finds petitioner has failed to demonstrate the required elements and this is not an extraordinary circumstance that merits one.”
On an unopposed summary judgment motion, the court accepted the movants’ factual assertions only to the extent the record supported them. Movants should cite evidence for each material fact even when no resistance is filed.
“This motion is unresisted. Thus, the Court will accept the facts stated in defendants’ motion as true to the extent they are supported by the record.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For these reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 33) is granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants the motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of all claims of defamation except for the one statement identified above in Section III(A)(11).”
“For the following reasons, the Court grants-in-part and denies-in-part defendants' motion.”
“For the reasons stated, the Court grants defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (Doc. 1), is dismissed.”
“For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 23) is denied.”
“the Court overrules defendant’s objection, overrules-in-part and sustains-in-part the government’s objections, adopts-in-part Judge Roberts’ R&R, and denies defendant’s Motion to Suppress.”
“Defendant’s objection (Doc. 54) is overruled. The Court adopts as modified the R&R. (Doc. 52). Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, (Doc. 43), is denied.”
“For these reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 22) is granted as to breach of contract (Count I).”
“Count II, the bad faith claim, is dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 32)”
“Also, the Court already granted defendant summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, and the parties stipulated to dismiss the bad faith claim with prejudice, which the Court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). Therefore, the motion to compel appraisal is now moot. For these reasons, the Court denies as moot plaintiff’s motion to compel appraisal.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all counts. Judgment shall enter on behalf of defendant.”
“For these reasons, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Doc. 25).”
“For these reasons, the Court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 63). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. This case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“For these reasons, the Court denied defendant’s motion in limine. (Doc. 386). In the interests of justice, and upon oral motion by defendant, the Court continued the trial by separate order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1204 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 81 days (N = 1).
- The nonexhaustive sample spans Williams's civil and criminal tenure.
- It includes the Nunes v. Lizza defamation matters; Hotchkiss, Becker, Boge, and Gall civil-rights or employment cases; Ledesma and Lopez Lopez immigration matters; Hawkeye Drive and Cedar Poly contract or insurance disputes; Spreitzer Properties removal and remand; Intirion patent litigation; Armstrong arbitration; and several felon-in-possession, drug, and suppression prosecutions.
- The sample does not represent his complete docket.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 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 Northern District of Iowa, not for Judge Williams: 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 | 248 | 7.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 62 | 8.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 184 | 5.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 2 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 248 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 259 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 270 | 8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 299 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 287 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 294 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 266 | 9.9 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 Williams with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Williams, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Williams's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace