Lisa A. Jensen
How Judge Jensen rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Jensen no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Jensen
Lisa A. Jensen served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Illinois's Western Division from 2019 until her retirement on September 9, 2024. She previously practiced civil litigation and taught the Prisoners' Rights Project at Northern Illinois University College of Law.
How Judge Jensen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Tamara P. v. Saul, Jensen remanded a disability decision because the administrative law judge’s emphasis on a “normal gait” overlooked contrary treatment findings and the decision made unsupported medical and daily-activity assumptions.
“in this Court's own review of the record, it found additional examples to support plaintiff's argument. In particular, Exhibit 13F ... Only one of these eight findings [of gait] was normal. ... medical expertise is typically needed to make assessments about what is 'normal' or 'significant' for particular ailments.”
The later consent Social Security opinions reinforce the same requirement with new medical evidence: when imaging or electrodiagnostic findings postdate the agency reviewers, the administrative judge must obtain medical scrutiny if the evidence could change the functional picture, rather than interpret technical results independently or omit contrary portions.
“MRI reports are exactly the type of medical evidence that an ALJ should submit to medical scrutiny, rather than interpreting on his own.”
In the consolidated Knight prison medical-care cases, Jensen recommended denying exhaustion-based dismissal motions after a hearing. She found that the grievance officer reached the merits of an ongoing care complaint and that the grievance sufficiently described the alleged wrongdoing despite omitting individual caregivers’ names.
“Grievance 21-1818 satisfied that requirement here where it provided Dixon with notice of Plaintiff’s complaints of the ongoing denial of medical care and gave prison officials an opportunity to correct them.”
Procedural preferences
At the pleading stage in an Illinois unjust-enrichment case, she treats a disputed contract's validity or scope as a reason to allow the quasi-contract theory to proceed. A reference to an agreement does not itself plead a valid enforceable contract, and discovery may be needed before the contract bar can be resolved.
“Until the validity or the scope of a contract is determined, it is typically premature to dismiss an unjust enrichment claim.”
In Harper v. Central Wire, she denied two defendants' request to stay discovery while their dismissal motions were pending. Their motions did not raise the threshold issues they claimed, and they supplied no cost estimate or other support for an undue-burden claim. She also considered the plaintiff's serious illness and the risk that a partial stay would duplicate discovery.
“There is no requirement that discovery cease during the pendency of a motion to dismiss. ... Defendants do not provide any estimate of the cost associated with responding to the discovery, nor do they provide an affidavit or other support for their allegation of undue burden.”
Cautions
In Shea v. Koehler, Jensen gave little weight to the plaintiff’s later, self-serving statements that he had not intended to make Illinois his domicile. She treated his earlier statements about domicile in the pleadings as evidence against his interest.
“These after the fact statements of intent with regard to citizenship are viewed skeptically by this Court ... Because Plaintiff's current statements alleging that he had no intent to make Illinois his domicile are self-serving, they are given little weight. However, his statements of domicile in his pleadings ... are statements against interest and thus they carry evidentiary weight.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the above reasons, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted, the Government's motion is denied, and the case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.”
“plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted, the Government's motion is denied, and the case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.”
“it is this Court’s report and recommendation that Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints for failure to exhaust administrative remedies [44] in Case No. 3:21-cv-50329 and [40] in Case No. 3:21-cv-50330 be denied.”
“it is this Court's report and recommendation that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment [28] be granted and that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Industrial Services Group, Inc. in the amount of $8,276.80.”
“Defendants Phibro-Tech, Inc. and C P Chemicals have moved for a protective order to stay discovery until the Court rules on its pending Motions to Dismiss. Dkt. 77. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for a protective order is denied.”
“Plaintiff agrees to convert his motion [167] into an oral motion to extend the date to dismiss the case with prejudice to 10/25/2022. Accordingly, it is this Court's report and recommendation that Plaintiff's motion be granted, and the parties' stipulation to dismiss this case [163] [164] would be modified to a dismissal without prejudice, to become a dismissal with prejudice on 10/25/2022.”
Report and Recommendation resolving a court-raised subject-matter-jurisdiction and citizenship question after a Seventh Circuit remand. Following an evidentiary hearing, Jensen found that the pro se attorney-plaintiff was domiciled in Illinois when he filed because he was physically present and intended to remain at his mother's Roscoe home, as shown by his prior pleadings. Complete diversity was therefore absent, allowing the district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. She wrote: 'this Court concludes that Plaintiff has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that after leaving his domicile in Illinois, he had established a domicile in either California or Nevada... and therefore his domicile remained Illinois. Because various defendants were domiciled in Illinois, Plaintiff cannot establish diversity of citizenship.' No party motion was pending.
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the Commissioner’s motion is denied. The decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the Commissioner’s motion is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Commissioner’s motion is denied. The decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceeding consistent with this opinion.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Commissioner’s motion is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Commissioner’s motion is denied. The decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceeding consistent with this opinion.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Commissioner’s motion is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied, the Commissioner’s motion is granted, and the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied, the Commissioner’s motion is granted, and the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied, the Commissioner’s motion is granted, and the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied, the Commissioner’s motion is granted, and the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Commissioner’s motion is denied. The decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Commissioner’s motion is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 138 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 24 days (N = 1).
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Jensen was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2024.
| 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 | 4 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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.
A historical record
Judge Jensen no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.