Beth W. Jantz
How Judge Jantz rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jantz
Beth W. Jantz has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Illinois since 2020. She previously represented federal criminal defendants with the Federal Defender Program and practiced class action and product liability law at Sidley Austin in Chicago. She also helps run the court's Sentencing Options that Achieve Results pretrial diversion program.
Judge Jantz's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Jantz, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Conferences
For referred or consent cases other than Social Security cases, follow the minute order for the joint initial status report or conference.
“In all cases assigned by consent or referral to Judge Jantz (except Social Security cases), the court will issue a minute order instructing the parties on next steps, which may include submitting a joint initial status report and/or appearing for an initial status conference.”
Conferences
A joint initial status report is ordinarily unnecessary for a settlement-only referral unless the court orders one.
“A joint initial status report is not required in cases that are referred solely for a settlement conference, unless otherwise specifically ordered by the court. For cases referred solely for a settlement conference, see Judge Jantz’s Standing Order for Settlement Conference Procedures.”
Conferences
At an initial settlement status hearing or call, be ready to schedule the conference and exchange of settlement letters with client calendars.
“A settlement conference date, and dates for the exchange of pre-settlement conference letters, usually will be set at the initial status hearing or conference call in those cases, so attorneys should plan to attend that hearing or call with their relevant clients’ schedules.”
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Jantz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At step three, a conclusory listing finding is insufficient when the record contains evidence that could satisfy the disputed criteria. Repeated psychiatric hospitalizations and deterioration required a meaningful paragraph C analysis.
“There may be reason in the record to determine that [Plaintiff] does not meet the C criteria, but what matters are the reasons articulated by the ALJ, which in this case were quite minimal.”
A residual-functional-capacity finding must explain why credited complaints lead to some restrictions but not others. Reducing exertion to sedentary work did not, without more, account for an alleged sitting limitation.
“In other words, the ALJ did not explain why some of Plaintiff’s alleged needs for accommodation were warranted while others were not.”
In the Kolak appeal, she required the administrative law judge to address mental-health evidence that supported an examining psychologist’s workplace limits, even though some treatment notes showed improvement.
“the ALJ must confront the evidence supporting the opinion and explain why it does not warrant greater persuasive value.”
Procedural preferences
Treats an evidence summary as distinct from the required analysis. A decision must show how significant evidence supports the functional finding rather than merely list the record.
“the act of summarizing the evidence is not the equivalent of providing an analysis of the evidence.”
Requires medical conclusions to rest on medical evidence rather than a lay assumption about which symptoms are compatible with a mental-health diagnosis.
“This is nothing more than a ‘hunch’ based on a lay understanding and thus constitutes the ALJ playing doctor.”
Cautions
A remand does not decide disability. Even when the claimant identifies evidence that could satisfy a listing, the administrative law judge retains responsibility for deciding the issue on a properly explained record.
“The Court is not concluding that Plaintiff has necessarily provided evidence to satisfy the paragraph C criteria, as that determination is for the ALJ.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's request to reverse the Commissioner's final decision [dkt. 1; dkt. 13; dkt 16] is granted and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgement [dkt. 14; dkt. 15] is denied. The Commissioner's decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 20] is granted, and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 27] is denied. The Commissioner's decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 16] is denied, and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 22] is granted. The Court affirms the Commissioner's final decision.”
“Plaintiffs' renewed motion for conditional certification and issuance of notice pursuant to U.S.C. § 216(b), [dkt. 194], is granted in part and denied in part, consistent with this opinion.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, [dkt. 39; dkt. 41].”
“Dr. Jokich's Motion to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Second Request for Production based on Rush's Subject-Matter Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege [66] is denied in part and moot in part. Requests 1-4 are denied for the reasons stated in this opinion.”
“Plaintiff’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s final decision [dkt. 1; dkt. 22; dkt 26] therefore is granted and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgement [dkt. 25] is denied. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“Plaintiff’s request to reverse and remand the Commissioner’s decision (dkt. 14) is GRANTED and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. 17) is DENIED. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of her Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (dkt. 16) is GRANTED and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. 20) is DENIED. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings, consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse or Remand the Decision of Social Security (Dkt. 10) is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17) is DENIED. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Reversal and Remand (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 19) is DENIED. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Summary Remand (Dkt. 13) is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 19) is DENIED. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 496 days (N = 4).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 332 days (N = 24).
- Two angles. (1) Her current direct/duty docket: criminal duty-magistrate work: search and seizure warrants on mail packages and cellphones, petty offenses, and criminal complaints (US v. Palmowski/Lawrence). (2) Her consent merits subject matter: a Social Security appeal docket (DIB/SSI, 636(c) consent), FLSA and wage collective actions (Hunter v. WirelessPCS), and ERISA/MPPAA withdrawal-liability collection (Clarson v. Scorpio).
- Plus referred discovery on other judges' civil dockets.
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 | 15 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Illinois, not for Judge Jantz: 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 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 4,300 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 7,558 | 5.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 305 | 12.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 42 | 49.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 9,700 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 7,093 | 6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,841 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 9,703 | 15.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,046 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 8,134 | 7.4 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 Jantz with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jantz, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jantz's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace