Sue E. Myerscough
How Judge Myerscough rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Myerscough
Sue Ellen Myerscough is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Myerscough received a commission on March 14, 2011. Judge Myerscough assumed senior status on March 9, 2023.
Judge Myerscough's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Myerscough, 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 Conduct of Counsel in the Courtroom and During Trial (Revised) ↗
- General Voir Dire Procedure and Court's Proposed Voir Dire ↗
- Pro Se Prisoner Trial Explanation ↗
- Standing Order On Courtesy Copies Provided To Chambers ↗
- Standing Order on Final Pretrial Conferences, Exhibits, and Jury Instructions ↗
- Standing Order on Formatting of Proposed Orders ↗
- Standing Order: Counsel communication with the Court and Court staff ↗
- Standing Order: Default Judgments ↗
- Standing Order: Procedures in Criminal Matters ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Copy opposing counsel on written correspondence with the court or court staff unless the court directs otherwise.
“Unless otherwise directed by the Court, all written correspondence with the Court or Court staff by counsel or counsel’s staff shall include the opposing counsel as a recipient of the correspondence.”
Filing
When courtesy copies are required, print copies for Judge Myerscough on both sides.
“Courtesy copies provided to the chambers of Judge Sue E. Myerscough and Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins shall be printed on both sides of the paper or double-sided.”
Filing
Use 14-point Bookman Old Style for proposed orders in both civil and criminal cases.
“All proposed orders submitted to Judge Myerscough, in both civil and criminal cases, should use 14-point Bookman Old Style font.”
Motions
Include a proposed order with every motion for default judgment.
“All motions for default judgment shall include a proposed order.”
Trial
Submit the required pretrial documents and motions at least seven days before the final pretrial conference unless ordered otherwise.
“Unless the Court orders otherwise, the parties shall submit the following documents and motions not less than seven days before the final pretrial 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 Myerscough decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mishaga v. Schmitz, Myerscough found that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing and dismissed the challenge for lack of a live case or controversy.
“Because Mishaga lacks standing, her complaint contains no live case or controversy.”
In Meyer v. St. John’s Hospital, Myerscough denied a partial motion to dismiss after finding that the plaintiff alleged a concrete injury: termination following a request for disability accommodation. Those allegations supported standing and ripeness at the pleading stage.
“has alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate her standing and the ripeness of her failure-to-accommodate claim”
In Southerland v. Escapa, Myerscough applied the then-governing Seventh Circuit two-step framework and upheld the challenged Illinois weapons statute against the plaintiff’s Second Amendment claim.
“720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 is constitutional under the two-step method for analyzing Second Amendment cases set forth by the Seventh Circuit in Ezell v. City of Chicago”
In a retaliatory discharge case, evidence that a supervisor learned of an employee injury could support an inference of corporate knowledge even without proof that the supervisor directly told the termination decision maker.
“The Court holds that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Wadford’s knowledge was imputed to the company based on the circumstances.”
Procedural preferences
In Leskovisek v. Illinois Department of Transportation, Myerscough dismissed Count V against Central Management Services without prejudice and with leave to replead, while denying the dismissal motion in all other respects.
“Count V is dismissed without prejudice as to CMS with leave to replead. The Motion is denied in all other respects.”
In E.O.R. Energy L.L.C. v. Messina, Myerscough dismissed the complaint for failing to allege an actual controversy and allowed the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by a stated deadline.
“Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a second amended complaint that contains factual allegations sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an actual controversy between the parties on or before April 14, 2017.”
In Whitchurch v. Canton Marine Towing Co., Myerscough dismissed the employer’s fraud counterclaim without prejudice and allowed it to amend the pleading.
“DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with leave to amend”
Cautions
In Finfrock v. United States, Myerscough found a Treasury regulation invalid but took both summary-judgment motions under advisement because an alternative argument about participation in the farm business and the refund amount still needed resolution.
“Because additional issues remain to be determined, however, the Motions for Summary Judgment are taken under advisement.”
Superseding an earlier filing with an amended version moots the original. Where a party filed both an original and an amended post-trial motion, the originals were denied as moot and only the amended versions were decided on their merits.
“are DENIED AS MOOT because they are duplicative of the amended motions”
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is enforced at the pleading stage. Discrimination theories that were not first presented to the administrative agency were dismissed even though related claims in the same complaint survived.
“dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies”
In a patent case, the court excluded an infringement expert after his report and testimony failed to apply the court’s construction of the disputed claim term.
“The Court holds that it is not and holds that Halstead is excluded from testifying that the F7 has a ‘second shell.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
In this estate-tax refund suit, the court found a Treasury regulation invalid but expressly took both summary judgment motions under advisement. The opinion supplies reasoning on a legal issue without a disposition of either motion. A later public disposition was not located in the previously checked docket, so no motion outcome is counted.
“The Court DENIES Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS Relator’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“The rest of the pending summary judgment motions are denied (d/e’s 470, 475, 476).”
“Aramark Food Services Corporation’s second motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part (d/e’s 471). The motion is granted as to the dispute over 9 C.F.R. 319.6. Section 319.6 is irrelevant. This regulation does not prohibit the serving of mechanically separated chicken as the sole protein source in meals. The motion is otherwise denied.”
“Because the NEBF Trustees failed to consider reliable, contrary evidence submitted by Hil-derbrand, Hilderbrand’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 12) is GRANTED IN PART and the cause is remanded to the NEBF Trustees for a de novo benefits *802determination. The NEBF’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 13) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is ALLOWED and PossibleNOW’s request for reconsideration is ALLOWED in part.”
“Because Stanbridge’s improperly signaled turns gave police officers probable cause to initiate the traffic stop and because the officers did not unreasonably prolong the stop when they called in investigative drug-sniffing dogs, Stan-bridge’s Motion is DENIED.”
“Because Mishaga lacks standing, her complaint contains no live case or controversy. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution, and so Mi-shaga’s Complaint must be dismissed, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment granted.”
“Before the Court is Defendant Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois’s Renewed and Revised Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 37), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56. The MOTION is GRANTED because Plaintiff Ardeshir Lohrasbi’s claim is time-barred and the doctrine of equitable tolling does not apply.”
“Because Plaintiff Tiffany Meyer, f/k/a Tiffany Cavoretto, has alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate her standing and the ripeness of her failure-to-accommodate claim, the Motion is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s motion is GRANTED because 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 is constitutional under the two-step method for analyzing Second Amendment cases set forth by the Seventh Circuit in Ezell v. City of Chicago, as applied in Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to .Dismiss is now GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“The'Motion is DENIED. Petitioner’s claim is barred by the waiver in his Plea Agreement. Even if the claim were not barred, Petitioner is not entitled to relief on the merits because none of Petitioner’s qualifying convictions were based on the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 992.0 days (N = 10).
- This cohort describes ten cases filed in a seven-week window at the very start of her federal service, not a census of her caseload, and the mix of a new district judge's first assignments need not resemble her docket in later years.
- Recorded case outcomes in the group were mixed: some ended on a pretrial motion, one went to a jury verdict, and several were voluntarily dismissed or closed on other grounds.
- The sample is far too small and too narrowly drawn to support a settlement rate or any comparison between case types.
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 | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 13 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 11 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 14 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 18 |
| Mar 2024 | 9 | 28 |
| Sep 2023 | 20 | 20 |
| Mar 2023 | 24 | 20 |
| Sep 2022 | 17 | 37 |
| Mar 2022 | 21 | 32 |
| Sep 2021 | 23 | 37 |
| Mar 2021 | 18 | 21 |
| Sep 2020 | 15 | 12 |
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 Central District of Illinois, not for Judge Myerscough: 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 Myerscough with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Myerscough, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Myerscough's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace