Colin Stirling Bruce
How Judge Bruce rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bruce
Colin Stirling Bruce is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Bruce received a commission on October 8, 2013.
Judge Bruce's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bruce, 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.
- General Rules For The Conduct Of Counsel In The Courtroom And During Trial ↗
- Memorandum to Counsel Regarding Rule 16 Scheduling Conferences in Cases before U.S. District Judge Colin S. Bruce and U.S. Magistrate Judge Eric I. Long ↗
Key rules
Motions
In criminal cases, file motions in limine two weeks before the final pretrial conference and responses one week before it.
“Motions in limine are due two weeks prior to the date set for the final pretrial conference. Responses are due one week prior to the final pretrial conference.”
Conferences
Submit the proposed discovery plan seven days before a Rule 16 conference to have it converted to telephone.
“If the parties have complied with the Court's order setting the scheduling conference by submitting their proposed discovery plan to the Court seven days prior to the scheduled conference, the Court will automatically convert the hearing from personal appearance to telephone conference.”
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 Bruce decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In prisoner First Amendment retaliation, what governs is whether prison officials' perception was REASONABLE, not the inmate's subjective intent. There is no protected right to file or help file a false grievance, and officials get substantial deference.
“There is no First Amendment right to file a false grievance or to help an inmate do so.”
Public-employee speech driven by a personal grievance is not on a matter of public concern, even if the underlying subject could interest the public: the content/context controls, and a self-focused crusade is unprotected as a matter of law.
“though the subject matter of plaintiff's speech could potentially be of interest to the public, the actual content of his speech is more consistent with a purely personal grievance.”
Documented inability to pay can overcome the presumption that a prevailing party receives costs, particularly where the losing party acted in good faith and the litigation presented difficult, close questions.
“Plaintiff has met her burden and provided sufficient evidence for the court to make a threshold factual finding that she is incapable of paying Defendants' costs.”
In a home-care wage case, Bruce rejected an employer’s claimed sleep-time credit because there was no agreement with caregivers to exclude that time. The decision also relied on the employer’s records and lack of contrary evidence when awarding back wages.
“the court finds that Midwest is not entitled to claim a sleep credit during the investigation period because there was no agreement on that topic, express or implied between employer and employee.”
In a patent discovery dispute, he ordered expense shifting after finding failures to supplement interrogatory responses, apply an appropriate email filter, and provide a chart linking produced documents to requests.
“In summary, the court finds that Plaintiff failed to comply with its discovery obligations in three separate respects:”
In Paul v. Edlow, Bruce upheld the agency’s denial of an extraordinary-ability visa after reviewing the submitted record for evidence of recognition beyond the applicant’s existing success. The applicant’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.
“Plaintiff has not pointed to evidence in the record distinguishing him from the merely successful and qualifying him as extraordinary.”
Procedural preferences
Whether speech is constitutionally protected is a question of law he decides himself (not the jury) at summary judgment, applying the Connick-Pickering / Mt. Healthy framework.
“The determination of whether speech is constitutionally protected is a question of law for the court.”
In a summary judgment dispute, the court denied a requested hearing after finding that the written submissions adequately presented the parties’ arguments.
“the parties have ably set out their arguments in this case and that oral argument is not necessary.”
In United States ex rel. Prose v. Health Alliance Medical Plans, Bruce left the defendants’ argument that two false-claims theories were duplicative for a fuller record. He denied the dismissal motion at the pleading stage.
“The court, at this time, declines to dismiss those claims as duplicative.”
Cautions
In Harris’s prison-retaliation case, Bruce granted summary judgment for the defendants after finding that they reasonably interpreted the plaintiff’s soy-diet note as encouraging false grievances; the plaintiff’s claimed benign intent did not change that assessment.
“Plaintiff's intentions are irrelevant so long as Defendants' reasonably interpreted Plaintiff's note as an encouragement to file false grievances.”
In Wozniak’s case, Bruce denied a motion to strike a summary-judgment response despite local-rule defects because he could understand the arguments. He disregarded factual assertions without sufficient citations.
“However, Plaintiff's Response presents the court with his arguments, and the court is confident in its ability to understand them.”
In Sinha v. Bradley University, Bruce granted the university summary judgment because the faculty member did not link the refusal to ratify his election as department chair to his earlier lawsuit. The evidence supported a pre-existing concern about his leadership.
“the fact that Plaintiff filed a lawsuit does not replace a legitimate, pre-existing basis for animus against Plaintiff being Chair with an improper retaliatory animus.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted (d/e 86). The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. All pending motions are denied as moot (d/e's 101-105), and this case is terminated, with the parties to bear their own costs.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (# 64) is GRANTED in full.”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike (# 70) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (# 14) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint (# 1) is dismissed in full. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.”
“The Motion to Compel Arbitration (#10) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Costs (#23) is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#17) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#18) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (# 36) is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Hearing (# 37) is DENIED.”
“The EEOC’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (#38) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (# 25) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Sanctions (#60) is GRANTED.”
“Motions to Seal (#59), (#63), (#65), and (#75) are GRANTED.”
“to Potentially Revised Report and Recommendation (#135) is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Strike (#134) is DENIED as MOOT.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#28) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#16) is GRANTED in full.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#11) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 255 days (N = 20).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 60 days (N = 47).
The January 2016 case cohort is descriptive rather than an exhaustive census. Several civil-rights and prisoner cases settled after summary-judgment briefing, but the sample is too small and targeted to support a settlement rate. No administrative case-disposition baseline is available for this cohort.
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 | 9 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 11 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 9 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 11 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 21 | 13 |
| Mar 2024 | 18 | 15 |
| Sep 2023 | 9 | 16 |
| Mar 2023 | 9 | 21 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 22 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 15 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 2 |
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 Central District of Illinois, not for Judge Bruce: 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 | 760 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 315 | 6.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 438 | 8.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 7 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 760 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 704 | 8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 625 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 637 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 684 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 629 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 653 | 10.1 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 Bruce with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bruce, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bruce's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace