Colleen Rae Lawless
How Judge Lawless rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lawless
Colleen Rae Lawless is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Lawless received a commission on March 9, 2023.
Judge Lawless's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Lawless, 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 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 Lawless decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Doe v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, she granted an unopposed pseudonym motion after treating the lack of a timely response as no opposition under the local rule. She later granted reconsideration of that order.
“Because no response was timely filed, the Court presumes Defendants have no opposition to the motion. See CDIL-LR 7.1(B)(2). For good cause shown, Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Proceed under Pseudonyms [Doc. 2] is GRANTED.”
In Cross v. Kelly, she granted an unopposed request to file a class-certification reply for the reasons stated in the motion.
“For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiff's Motion 22 is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file the Reply attached to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File.”
In Doe v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, she granted reconsideration of her earlier pseudonym order and required the plaintiff to litigate under his real name.
“Defendants Motion for Reconsideration of the prior Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed under a Pseudonym [Doc. 37] is GRANTED. Plaintiff must litigate under his real name.”
In a single Illinois Human Rights Act case, the court dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff alleged no facts showing exhaustion of state administrative procedures. It allowed amendment within 21 days.
“Because Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts from which the court could conclude that he satisfied the administrative procedures set forth in the IHRA, the Court dismisses his IHRA Complaint without prejudice.”
In Ford, the judge examined the actual work, office document security rules, training duties, and current schedules before deciding whether permanent remote work was a reasonable accommodation. Because those facts required some in-person work, she granted the employer’s summary judgment motion.
“the Court finds Ford cannot complete the essential functions of his position working remotely full-time.”
Procedural preferences
In Smith v. KEDPlasma USA, she set oral argument on a motion to compel arbitration on her own initiative and scheduled it by videoconference.
“Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act 4 . The Court sua sponte sets oral argument on the motion on 9/7/2023 at 3:00 p.m. by videoconference, the instructions for which are attached.”
In Smith v. KEDPlasma USA, she heard argument on the motion to compel and took the matter under advisement for a written order.
“Arguments heard as to Motion to Compel 4 . Written Order to be entered. Hearing adjourned.”
In Hammond v. Graphic Packaging, Inc., she dismissed the complaint without prejudice and gave the plaintiff twenty-one days to amend.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1 -1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 21 day s of this Order.”
In Shannon, the court ordered interim reinstatement to a university basketball team because the suspension process lacked sufficient safeguards, requiring the university to provide a fuller disciplinary process before suspending the student again.
“Defendants are enjoined from suspending Plaintiff from the basketball team without at least affording him the protections of the OSCR Policy.”
In Novick v. Village of Bourbonnais, the court declined to split municipal-liability claims while discovery continued because the claims were intertwined and a separate track would delay resolution.
“enmeshed, whereby bifurcation will only cause an unreasonable delay to resolution,”
In Bell v. Armstrong, Lawless dismissed a habeas petition for lack of exhaustion after the petitioner did not seek an available Illinois writ of mandamus. The pending injunction request then became moot.
“the Court dismisses Petitioner’s Petition as unexhausted.”
Cautions
In Hammond v. Graphic Packaging, Inc., she closed the case and entered judgment for the defendant after the plaintiff did not amend within the twenty-one days allowed by the dismissal order.
“On 1/31/2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice and gave him 21 days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment for Defendant.”
In Kraft v. Shelby County Illinois, an amended opinion replaced an earlier ruling and dismissed three counts without prejudice. The amended opinion is the operative disposition.
“AMENDED OPINION entered by Judge Colleen R. Lawless on 10/23/2025. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12 ) is GRANTED without prejudice as to Counts I, II, and III.”
In Doe v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, the motion to dismiss was argued in October 2023 and decided in September 2024. That interval describes this case's motion timeline.
“Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19 ) is DENIED as to Count IV and GRANTED as to the following claims and defendants: 1) Counts II and IV; 2) Defendant Fleenor;”
In one prisoner case, a single letter declining representation did not establish reasonable efforts to obtain counsel, so the court denied two counsel requests.
“The Court finds Plaintiff has not demonstrated he reasonably attempted to obtain counsel, which typically requires writing to several lawyers and attaching the responses received. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motions for Counsel (Docs. 5, 7).”
In a school harassment case, the court warned that further citations to nonexistent decisions or false accounts of real decisions would prompt a show-cause hearing and consideration of sanctions. Check every cited proposition against its source.
“any future citation to nonexistent cases, cases for legal propositions not discussed or supported, or other false representations to the Court will result in a show cause hearing and consideration of sanctions.”
In Henson v. Miller, the court dismissed claims against federal prosecutors where the pleaded acts were tied to their advocacy in other cases.
“All of Henson’s claims must be dismissed based on absolute prosecutorial”
In Jones v. Campbell, Lawless dismissed a prisoner’s damages claim because success would undermine the validity or duration of his continuing confinement. She identified habeas corpus as the available route until the conviction or parole revocation was invalidated.
“Plaintiff’s sole remedy, at this point, is through habeas corpus.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is DENIED as to Count IV and GRANTED as to the following claims and defendants: 1) Counts II and IV; 2) Defendant Fleenor; 3) Title IX claims in Count I against individual defendants; 4) breach of contract claims against individual defendants in Count III; 5) injunctive relief claims against individual defendants in their individual capacity; and 6) monetary damages claims against individual defendants in their official capacities.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the prior Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed under a Pseudonym [Doc. 37] is GRANTED.”
“For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1-1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 21 days of this Order. 2 In light of this ruling, the Court DENIES AS MOOT both Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) with leave to refile, if necessary.”
“Plaintiff’s Motions for Counsel (Doc. [5], [7]) are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motions for Status (Docs. [6], [9]) are MOOT.”
“Plaintiff Terrence Shannon, Jr.’s Verified Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 10) is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons above, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 35), is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. (Doc. 28).”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate and Stay Discovery and Trial of Plaintiff’s Municipal Liability Claims (Doc. 33) is denied with leave to renew”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [14] is GRANTED.”
“the Court GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7),”
“pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The motion-bearing cases include employment and disability discrimination suits, a consumer arbitration dispute, a Title IX and civil rights case against a state university, prisoner civil rights matters, a fair debt collection case, and a class action challenging a state sex offender registry classification.
- The sample was selected to locate quotable motion outcomes and is not a full-tenure subject-matter estimate.
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 | 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 | 18 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 18 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 14 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 16 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 29 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 23 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 24 |
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 Lawless: 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 Lawless with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lawless, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lawless's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace