Jeannice W. Appenteng
How Judge Appenteng rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Appenteng
Jeannice W. Appenteng became a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Illinois in October 2023. Before joining the bench, she spent eight years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the district and previously clerked for two federal district judges.
Judge Appenteng's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Appenteng, as published on the court's website (checked October 17, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Judge Appenteng's Standing Order for Initial Joint Status Report ↗
- Judge Appenteng's Standing Order for Settlement Conference ↗
- Standing Order Governing Pretrial Procedures and Final Pretrial Order ↗
- Model Confidentiality Order ↗
- Example of a HIPAA Protective Order ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Each party must email its settlement letter to chambers on the same day it gives the letter to opposing counsel.
“Each party shall email a copy of its letter to the Court’s chambers on the same day that it is provided to opposing counsel.”
Filing
The joint proposed pretrial order must be docketed and emailed to chambers in Microsoft Word format.
“Proposed pretrial orders must be filed on the docket by selecting ‘Other Filings’ and then ‘Other Documents,’ and choosing the proposed pretrial order event in CM/ECF. Courtesy copies are not necessary, however, the proposed pretrial order must be e- mailed to [email protected] in Microsoft Word format.”
Filing
Changes to the model confidentiality order must be shown in a redline that displays additions and deletions.
“Any changes to this model order must be shown by redlining showing both deletions and additions.”
Motions
Civil motions in limine and responses must each be consolidated into one filing, with a 15-page total per party absent leave.
“A party must consolidate separate motions in limine into a single filing (meaning the same ECF entry). The parties must also consolidate their responses to motions in limine into a single response brief (meaning the same ECF entry). Separately filed motions or separately filed responses to each motion are not permitted. Absent prior leave of Court, motions in limine (not including exhibits) are limited to a total of 15 pages per party (not per motion), and responses (not including exhibits) are likewise limited to a total of 15 pages per party.”
Motions
Daubert motions are due at least 35 days and responses at least 21 days before the final pretrial conference.
“Any Daubert motions shall be filed no later than 35 days and responses no later than 21 days before the final pretrial conference.”
Conferences
In the initial joint status report, parties must say whether they consent to all further proceedings before Appenteng.
“State whether all parties will consent to have Judge Appenteng conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73.”
Conferences
Settlement letters are limited to six double-spaced pages unless the court grants leave; submissions over ten pages need courtesy copies.
“Parties must limit settlement letters to six pages double-spaced, exclusive of exhibits, unless they obtain leave of Court, which may be obtained by emailing the Courtroom Deputy. Parties must submit courtesy copies of any submissions (inclusive of exhibits) longer than ten pages.”
Sealing
The example HIPAA protective order does not itself authorize sealing; parties must seek a separate good-cause determination.
“This Order does not authorize either party to seal court filings or court proceedings. The Court will make a good cause determination for filing under seal if and when the parties seek to file Plaintiff’s protected health information under seal.”
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 Appenteng decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In one remand, the court required an explanation for treating moderate limits with supervisors differently from limits with the public; the missing rationale prevented meaningful review.
“The problem is that the ALJ offers no rationale for why an ability to act appropriately in a professional setting requires restricted interaction with the public but allows for unlimited interaction with supervisors.”
In another remand, normal strength and range-of-motion findings did not adequately explain away functional limits attributed to fibromyalgia pain.
“the ALJ did not provide a logical bridge between the evidence and his conclusion that plaintiff can engage in light work despite fibromyalgia pain.”
Cautions
In a consent benefits appeal, the court rejected a challenge to the assessment of a medical opinion where the claimant did not point to treatment notes supporting the greater mental restrictions she urged.
“Plaintiff does not identify any specific treatment notes that the ALJ failed to consider, much less ones that support Ms. Stewart’s assessment that plaintiff is completely incapable of handling the mental demands of full-time work.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s request to reverse or remand the case [16] is granted, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment [17] is denied. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the ALJ’s decision is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 8 Case: 1:22-cv-01600 Document #: 27 Filed: 01/15/25 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:624”
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [13] is granted, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment [19] is denied. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the ALJ’s decision is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [15] is denied, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment [16] is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner.”
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [15] is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner.”
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [28] is denied, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment [20] is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner.”
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [11] is denied, and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment [12] is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner.”
“plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [16] is granted”
“plaintiff’s request to reverse or remand the case [16] is denied”
“plaintiff’s request to reverse the decision of the Commissioner [12] is granted”
“plaintiff’s request to reverse or remand the case is denied”
“plaintiff’s request to reverse or remand the case is denied”
“plaintiff’s request to reverse or remand the case [11] is denied”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed set includes consent disability appeals and two civil cases with express procedural rulings. Pending disability and investigative matters appear in the assigned-name results, but the selected orders do not support a court-wide caseload rate.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, not for Judge Appenteng: 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 Appenteng with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Appenteng, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Appenteng's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace