David Wayne Dugan
How Judge Dugan rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dugan
David Wayne Dugan is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Dugan received a commission on September 23, 2020.
Judge Dugan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Dugan, 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.
- Judge Dugan's Civil Case Management Procedures ↗
- Judge Dugan's Criminal Case Management Procedures ↗
- Judge Dugan's Summary Judgment Notice ↗
Key rules
Motions
In criminal cases, file motions in limine at least 21 calendar days before trial; responses are due within seven days of service.
“By contrast to civil cases, motions in limine in Judge Dugan’s criminal cases must be filed no later than 21 calendar days before trial. Responses to motions in limine must be filed within 7 days after service of the motion.”
Trial
A nonprisoner civil trial date is firm; continuances require exceptional circumstances.
“Judge Dugan assigns newly filed or removed non-prisoner civil cases a firm trial date. Continuances of the trial date will be given only in exceptional circumstances.”
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 Dugan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a motion for a STATUTORY injunction (e.g. 18 U.S.C. 1345), the movant need not make the traditional eBay/Winter showing of irreparable harm or inadequacy of legal remedy: once a violation is demonstrated, it need only show a reasonable likelihood of future violations. A repeat violation after a signed cease/'voluntary discontinuance' satisfies that.
“Once a violation is demonstrated, the moving party need show only that there is some reasonable likelihood of future violations.”
Procedural preferences
In Lipscomb v. Connor, Dugan dismissed the prisoner’s suit without prejudice after an evidentiary hearing because he found that the plaintiff had not exhausted available administrative remedies.
“the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, so this case must be dismissed without prejudice.”
In Dixon v. Delgado, he granted reconsideration under Rule 54(b) of a ruling that had applied Heck to bar the prisoner's argument that he did not assault an officer. He vacated that portion because the disciplinary sanctions affected only conditions of confinement.
“The Court’s prior ruling in the Summary Judgment Order finding that Plaintiff’s arguments denying his assault of Defendant Delgado were foreclosed by Heck is hereby VACATED.”
Cautions
To obtain recruited (pro bono) counsel, an indigent litigant must clear the Pruitt/Walker 'threshold': document at least three specific attorney contacts: names, addresses, means and dates of contact, and any responses (with copies). Bare assertions that firms declined are not enough.
“To adequately demonstrate attempts to recruit counsel in any subsequent motion, Plaintiff must submit the names and addresses of at least three attorneys contacted for representation, the means by which he communicated with those attorneys (e.g., by phone, letter, or email), the date of the communications, and the responses, if any, of the attorneys to his communications.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the United States (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. Claims 3-5 against the United States are dismissed because Plaintiff failed to exhaust these claims as required by the FTCA.”
“The Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 19) is DENIED as MOOT.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Fourth Motion for the Recruitment of Counsel without prejudice.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's fifth Motion in Limine, construed as a Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 54(b). ... The Court's prior ruling in the Summary Judgment Order finding that Plaintiff's arguments denying his assault of Defendant Delgado were foreclosed by Heck is hereby VACATED.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for a default judgment against Defendant. ... the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction against Defendant. ... Consistent with these rulings, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for the Entry of a Final Default Judgment.”
“Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is now DISMISSED without prejudice because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and CLOSE this case.”
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS, in part, Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 127), and REFERS the following issues to the consideration of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency:”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 141) is DENIED.”
“the Court DENIES, without prejudice, Defendant Centerville's Motion to Bar the Supplemental Report of Plaintiff's Expert Jose A. Constantine (Doc. 138)”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Reply at Doc. 144 (Doc. 150) is also DENIED.”
“the Court DENIES, without prejudice, ... Plaintiffs' Motion to Bar Defendants' Untimely Documents and for Sanctions (Doc. 150).”
“Plaintiff's Motions to Amend (Docs. 48, 50) are GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Stay (Doc. 54) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Chadderton and IDOC's Motion to Supplement (Doc. 73) is DENIED.”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 90).”
“Defendants Motion for Leave to File an Untimely Reply (Doc. 107) and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 102) are GRANTED.”
“even assuming the other Rule 37(e)(2) requirements are met, the Court finds Plaintiff is not entitled to that relief.”
“the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Motion to Exclude Testimony is DENIED as moot.”
“the Motion to Exclude Testimony is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 104) is DENIED.”
“the default entered on May 24, 2021 is hereby SET ASIDE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 272 days (N = 17).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 178.5 days (N = 2).
The reviewed cases are a limited slice of Judge Dugan's docket rather than a complete caseload census, so the case mix is descriptive only.
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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 20 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 10 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 8 |
| 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 Southern District of Illinois, not for Judge Dugan: 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 | 1,081 | 13.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 651 | 13.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 414 | 13.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 7 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,081 | 13.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,389 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 863 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 836 | 10.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 753 | 9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 897 | 13.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,281 | 8.3 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 Dugan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dugan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dugan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace