John Robert Blakey
How Judge Blakey rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Blakey
John Robert Blakey is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Blakey received a commission on December 19, 2014.
Judge Blakey's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Blakey, 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.
- Case Procedures ↗
- standing order and procedures for criminal cases (including pretrial memo and motions).revised august 2022 ↗
- proposed pretrial order and procedures including motions in limine civil final ↗
Key rules
Motions
Bankruptcy appeal briefs are limited to 15 pages.
“Judge Blakey will set a briefing schedule on all bankruptcy appeals. Briefs are limited to 15 pages each.”
Sealing
Move for a discovery confidentiality order and attach a proposed order based on the local model.
“Parties who request entry of an order to preserve the confidentiality of material disclosed in discovery shall do so by motion. Counsel must attach the proposed order to the motion as an exhibit and base the proposed order on the Model Confidentiality Order contained in the Local Rules. Counsel should add the bracketed language to or delete it from the Model Confidentiality Order as appropriate for a specific case.”
Other
Deliver the draft plea agreement or declaration to chambers at least one week before a change-of-plea hearing.
“Parties wishing to set a change of plea are advised as follows: (1) the Court requires the parties to provide a copy of the draft plea agreement (or plea declaration) to chambers (in hardcopy or via the Court's proposed order inbox, [email protected]) at least one week prior to the change of plea hearing; and (2) if the matter involves an offense triggering a remand to custody under 18 U.S.C.”
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 Blakey decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Babjak v. AbbVie, Blakey dismissed the consolidated FCA retaliation claims because the employees had not pleaded protected activity under the Seventh Circuit’s Uhlig standard. He declined to substitute Title VII retaliation rules for that standard and allowed repleading.
“No court has ever applied Title VII’s retaliation standards to FCA retaliation claims ... This Court likewise declines to apply Title VII’s standards to FCA retaliation claims. Uhlig controls, and under that standard Plaintiffs fail to plead that they engaged in protected activity.”
In CaramelCrisp v. Putnam, Blakey granted the former employee summary judgment on a breach of contract claim because the company had no evidence of actual harm from the alleged breach. He also rejected nominal damages without a demonstrated entitlement to damages.
“Here, Plaintiff cannot show that it has been harmed by Defendant’s alleged breach. Thus, it cannot show an entitlement to nominal damages and its action for breach of contract fails.”
Procedural preferences
In Smith v. Toledo, Blakey declined to consider body camera footage submitted with the defendants’ dismissal briefing because the footage was neither part of the complaint nor subject to judicial notice. He treated it as material for summary judgment.
“But this footage is neither attached to the complaint or referred to in it, nor is it otherwise subject to judicial notice. As such, the material remains better suited to a motion for summary judgment.”
In Hinkens v. CA, Blakey rejected an implied covenant theory raised for the first time in the plaintiff’s summary judgment response because the complaint had not pleaded it. He also found no evidence of an opportunistic discharge intended to avoid a commission.
“Plaintiff may not amend his complaint through his response brief at summary judgment.”
In the reviewed transfer dispute, the proposed Florida witnesses were described too generally and their anticipated testimony overlapped, so the defendants did not show another venue was clearly more convenient.
“This generalized invocation remains insufficient to carry movants’ burden at this stage”
Cautions
In Hinkens v. CA, Blakey granted the employer summary judgment on a commission claim. The compensation plan made continued employment a condition for earning the commission, and the transaction closed after the employee’s termination; the record also did not support his claimed bad faith discharge.
“When the Ensono transaction finally closed at the end of June, Plaintiff no longer worked for Defendant and could not earn a commission on the transaction ... Thus, this Court grants summary judgment to Defendant on Count I.”
In the reviewed settled case, an intervention request filed after the parties reached a binding agreement was rejected as untimely.
“This Court finds Duric’s Motion to Intervene [285] untimely.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“This Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss each Plaintiff’s complaint. ... For the reasons explained below, this Court grants Defendant’s motion in its entirety.”
“this Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss [24]. The motion to dismiss is granted as to the Fourteenth Amendment claims in Count I, II, and III of the amended complaint [20], and denied as to the Fourth Amendment claim in Count II.”
“the Court grants Defendant’s motion [188] and denies Plaintiff’s motion [192]. ... Based upon the undisputed portions of the record, this Court grants summary judgment in Defendant’s favor as to Count III.”
“the Court grants Defendant’s motion [188] and denies Plaintiff’s motion [192].”
“This Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [37] and enters judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff. ... Civil case terminated.”
“This Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion to dismiss [27]. This Court dismisses without prejudice Counts II, IV, and VI, but denies the motion to dismiss Counts I, III, and V.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint [36] is denied.”
“Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted with regard to Count I and denied with regard to Count II. Because Plaintiff already had an opportunity to amend Count I to resolve the same deficiencies addressed today, judgment on that Count is with prejudice as to any amendment.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment [87] is granted.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment [70] is granted.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss [98] is denied.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss [11] is granted. Civil case terminated.”
“Based upon the record, Defendant has failed to meet the substantial burden necessary to warrant a Franks hearing, and the Court thus denies his motion [72].”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 472 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 47 days (N = 3).
- Judge Blakey's reviewed docket includes civil-rights and police cases, prisoner habeas matters, intellectual-property enforcement, product-liability disputes, and federal criminal cases.
- The sampled merits decisions also address whistleblower retaliation, Fourth Amendment claims, trade secrets and contracts, and employment compensation.
- Case-type and assignment information was incomplete for some matters.
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 | 39 |
| 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 | 31 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 39 | 31 |
| Sep 2025 | 105 | 43 |
| Mar 2025 | 62 | 33 |
| Sep 2024 | 28 | 54 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 27 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 34 |
| Mar 2023 | 16 | 30 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 29 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 26 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 22 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 16 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 16 |
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 Northern District of Illinois, not for Judge Blakey: 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 Blakey with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Blakey, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Blakey's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace