Leonard Terry Strand
How Judge Strand rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Strand
Leonard Terry Strand is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Strand received a commission on February 12, 2016.
Judge Strand's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Strand, 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 and all other parties on email to Judge Strand, except permissible ex parte messages.
“When emailing Chief Judge Strand, copy in his judicial assistant along with all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties”
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.”
Other
Complete client preparation for a guilty plea hearing by the day before the hearing.
“The preparations for a guilty plea hearing are to be completed as soon as practicable, but not later than the day before the plea hearing.”
Other
If seeking a change in detention status at a plea hearing, notify chambers and opposing counsel at least three business days before it.
“No later than three business days prior to the plea hearing, a party should notify chambers and opposing counsel if the party intends to seek a change in Defendant’s detention status”
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 Strand decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hopkins, Strand considered an unresisted summary-judgment motion on the merits, applying the Turner factors to the plaintiffs’ religious-exercise claims before granting the motion.
“Initially, I note that per LR 56(c), ‘[i]f no timely resistance to a motion for summary judgment is filed, the motion may be granted without prior notice from the court.’ But even if I consider plaintiffs’ claims on their merits, those claims fail.”
In Henderson v. State Farm, Strand granted summary judgment on a bad-faith claim because the insurer had an objectively reasonable basis at the time to conclude the roof could be repaired. A later appraisal award reaching a different result did not establish that the earlier decision was unreasonable.
“State Farm's determination that the roof could be repaired instead of being fully replaced was an objectively reasonable basis to deny the Homeowners' request at the time. The fact that the appraisal award later determined otherwise is irrelevant...”
In Roberts’s case, Strand dismissed an amended complaint that listed federal laws and constitutional provisions without explaining how they applied to the defendants or the facts, after warning Roberts to plead clearly.
“He did not heed that warning and his amended complaint fails.”
In Social Security review, the judge treated an administrative law judge's awareness of another agency's disability determination as triggering a duty to obtain and consider the evidence underlying that determination, even though the claimant had not supplied it.
“Although Claimant did not introduce the VA’s rationale into the record, the ALJ was aware of the decision and had an independent obligation to seek it out.”
In Golden Opportunities, LLC v. Kuchenbecker Excavating, Inc., Strand denied partial summary judgment on the indemnity dispute because material facts remained contested about whether Golden Opportunities was negligent.
“Significant disputed facts prevent a finding that Golden Opportunities was negligent as a matter of law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 14) for summary judgment is granted in its entirety. All of plaintiff's claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 12) for partial summary judgment is denied.”
“State Farm's motion (Doc. 22) for summary judgment is granted as to all claims. ... This action is hereby dismissed and judgment shall enter in favor of State Farm and against plaintiffs.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, defendants' motion (Doc. 17) for summary judgment is granted as to all claims. Judgment shall enter in favor of the defendants and against plaintiffs.”
“To the extent this case purports to assert new claims against the named defendants, those claims are denied pursuant to 1915(e)(2) and pursuant to defendant Lauren Norcross' motion (Doc. 17) to dismiss, which is granted. This action is hereby dismissed and the Clerk of Court shall close this case.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Washburn's motion (Doc. 80) for default judgment is denied without prejudice.”
“The defendants' motion (Doc. 32) for summary judgment is denied without prejudice.”
“The plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 118) for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as to the HPRD requirements and the 24/7 RN requirement at 42 C.F.R. SS 483.35(b)(1) and 483.35(c), which are hereby vacated pursuant to 5 U.S.C. SS 706(2). It is denied as to the EFA and Medicaid institutional reporting requirements”
“The defendants' motion (Doc. 122) for judgment on the administrative record is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as to the EFA and Medicaid institutional reporting requirements, which shall remain in the Final Rule. It is denied as to the HPRD requirements and the 24/7 RN requirement.”
“Respondent Beth Skinner’s motion (Doc. 9) to dismiss is granted.”
“Randy Lee’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability shall not issue.”
“Lavigne’s motion (Doc. 198) to set aside the default entry is granted.”
“Lavigne seeks dismissal of all counts against him except Count VII – alter ego liability. ... Lavigne’s partial motion (Doc. 203) to dismiss is granted. Counts I through VI and Counts VIII through XI against Lavigne are hereby dismissed. This case shall proceed against Lavigne on Count VII only.”
“Communication Enhancement’s motion (Doc. 54) for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendants’ motion (Doc. 53) for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Amtrak’s motion (Doc. 11) to compel arbitration and stay proceedings is granted pursuant to the Texas Arbitration Act. This case is hereby stayed pending the resolution of arbitration or further order of the court.”
“Carson’s motion (Doc. 2) for preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice.”
“Amtrak’s various motions to strike (Docs. 19, 20, 21) are denied.”
“Carson’s motion (Doc. 23) for extension of time, leave to exceed page limits, and for clarification/leave regarding exhibits is granted to the extent it seeks an extension of time and leave to exceed the page limits in her resistance. It is denied as moot as to all other aspects.”
“For the reasons stated herein, respondents’ motion (Doc. 6) to dismiss is granted and this case is hereby dismissed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 631 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 116 days (N = 28).
The nonexhaustive sample spans prisoner civil rights, personal injury, Social Security, labor and FMLA, defamation, and immigration habeas. It includes Sires, Menge, several prisoner civil-rights matters, Wieden, Rasmussen, Cruz, Young, Baxter, and a recent cluster of alien-detainee habeas petitions. The sample does not represent Strand's 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 | 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 | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 6 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 1 |
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 Strand: 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 Strand with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Strand, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Strand's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace