Stephanie Marie Rose
How Judge Rose rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rose
Stephanie Marie Rose is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Rose received a commission on September 17, 2012.
Judge Rose's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Rose'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 Rose decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Tennant’s attempted removal of a state criminal case, Rose allowed the self-represented defendant’s filing to be docketed without prepayment of costs after finding that his affidavit satisfied section 1915(a).
“Although the Court would have welcomed a more detailed affidavit, the Court, aware that Defendant is pro se, finds Defendant has satisfied the requirements of section 1915(a) and the removal filings shall be docketed without prepayment of costs.”
Procedural preferences
In City of Council Bluffs v. U.S. Department of the Interior, Rose found the agency’s restored-lands analysis arbitrary and capricious because it omitted factual circumstances identified in the prior appellate remand. She granted the challengers partial summary judgment and remanded for further consideration.
“Here, having failed to consider relevant factors in its restored lands analysis, the NIGC's conclusion based on that analysis is arbitrary and capricious.”
In Charleston v. McCarthy, Rose addressed the defendants’ subject-matter jurisdiction challenge as a threshold matter before considering their failure-to-state-a-claim argument.
“As a threshold matter, the Court must address Defendants’ claim under Rule 12(b)(1) that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”
In Tennant’s case, Rose remanded an attempted removal of a state criminal prosecution because the defendant did not meet section 1443’s requirements; she also found the requested review of the state case barred by jurisdictional and abstention principles.
“Removal here was improper and remand is appropriate.”
In one benefits-plan dispute, the court dismissed a negligence claim but allowed an amended fiduciary-duty pleading directed at losses to the plan.
“The Hospital is GRANTED leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint to comply with this Court’s analysis regarding the requested damages.”
Cautions
In Andrews v. BNSF Railway Co., Rose denied the railroad’s summary judgment motion because the parties disputed material facts about the hand brake and whether the conductor followed the railroad’s release procedure.
“The parties dispute whether Andrews correctly followed BNSF's training and rules governing the release of hand brakes.”
In Farris v. American Medical Systems, Rose took judicial notice of an FDA webpage but declined to consider an affidavit and letter first submitted with the defendant’s reply. She denied dismissal on preemption grounds because the device’s approval process remained disputed on the pleadings.
“The Court declines to consider the items filed as Exhibit 1 alongside AMS’s reply and does not convert the current motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons outlined below, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs Complaint in this case fails to state a claim that is plausible on its face, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
“ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO ABATE”
“As explained below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“the Court, aware that Defendant is pro se, finds Defendant has satisfied the requirements of section 1915(a) and the removal filings shall be docketed without prepayment of costs.”
“Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, [ECF Nos. 33; 35]. ... For the reasons set out below, the motions are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Business Leaders in Christ (‘BLinC’) seeks summary judgement in its favor on its various claims that the University violated its First Amendment rights ... As explained below, both motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendants ... move for partial summary judgment in favor of the individual Defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. ... As explained below, both motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 22], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 35] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 23], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“the Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 19], is GRANTED in part.”
“Defendant Matt Schultz’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 12], filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), is GRANTED”
“Plaintiffs Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 4] is DENIED.”
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 | 3 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 12 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 17 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 14 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 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 Southern District of Iowa, not for Judge Rose: 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 | 395 | 8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 161 | 9.1 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 222 | 5.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 4 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 395 | 8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 360 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 363 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 311 | 10.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 372 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 339 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 341 | 9.4 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 Rose with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rose, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rose's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace