John Phil Gilbert
How Judge Gilbert rules, drawn from 40 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gilbert
John Phil Gilbert is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Gilbert received a commission on September 24, 1992. Judge Gilbert assumed senior status on March 15, 2014.
Judge Gilbert's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gilbert, 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.
- Senior Judge Gilbert's Case Management Procedures ↗
- Senior Judge Gilbert's Final Pre-Trial Order ↗
- Senior Judge Gilbert's Instructions for Preparing Final Pre-Trial Order ↗
Key rules
Motions
Email a proposed order to Judge Gilbert for every motion filed.
“A movant must submit a proposed order to Judge Gilbert's e-mail address ([email protected]) for every motion filed.”
Trial
Submit the final pretrial order to the trial judge three days before the final pretrial conference unless directed otherwise.
“The Final Pretrial Order should be submitted to the trial judge 3 days before the date of the Final Pretrial Conference or as otherwise directed by the Court.”
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 Gilbert decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Annamalai v. United States, he denied a motion to dismiss two emotional-distress counts that had survived § 1915A screening, finding that the plaintiff alleged physical injury and leaving fuller factual review for a later stage.
“Defendant USA’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in Counts 9 and 10 (Doc. 81) is DENIED.”
Procedural preferences
In Marin-DeJesus v. Szoke, Gilbert treated the prisoner’s failure to answer a summary judgment motion, Rule 56 notice, and show-cause order as an admission under the local rule. He also found the claim untimely and unsupported on the merits.
“the Court construes Plaintiff's failure to respond to the pending summary judgment motion as an admission of the merits of the motion filed by Defendants.”
In Rose v. City of West Frankfort, Gilbert dismissed a Monell count at screening because the complaint offered only a bare assertion that a municipal policy caused a constitutional violation. He allowed other claims to proceed.
“A naked statement that a policy or practice exists and caused a constitutional violation is not enough to withstand a motion to dismiss.”
In one exhaustion-based summary-judgment decision, Gilbert required the defendants to identify an appeal step in the jail’s written grievance procedure before treating the prisoner’s failure to appeal as a bar.
“mention no appeals process, so Plaintiff was not required to appeal.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43) is GRANTED. See SDIL-LR 7.1(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) and 56(e). This action, including COUNT 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice against Defendants SZOKE, CASTILLO, and DUNCAN.”
“Defendant USA's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in Counts 9 and 10 (Doc. 81) is DENIED. Defendant is ORDERED to file an Answer to Counts 9 and 10 on or before FEBRUARY 6, 2024.”
“Finding that the Petitioner's claims lack any merit and finding that the Petitioner has lied under oath, the Court hereby DENIES his petition, DISMISSES this case with prejudice.”
“the Court GRANTS the motion (Doc. 150) and reduces the defendant's sentence of imprisonment from 210 months to 188 months. The Court attaches its standard order (AO Form 247) reflecting the sentence reduction.”
During screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), the court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's 16-count amended complaint against a city and police officers alleging First Amendment retaliation, ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations, Monell liability, Sections 1985 and 1986 conspiracy, civil RICO, and an Illinois Hate Crime Act claim. It dismissed the Monell and civil RICO counts without prejudice; dismissed the Sections 1985 and 1986 counts with prejudice; and allowed other claims to proceed. Grounding quote: 'Counts 12, 13, 15 and 16 ... are dismissed without prejudice; Counts 11 and 14 are dismissed with prejudice.' This sua sponte screening disposition did not resolve a party motion and shows his pleading-standard rigor, including the observation that 'A naked statement that a policy or practice exists ... is not enough.'
The plaintiff's 'response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment' was construed as a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal signed by all appearing parties. The court gave it effect and dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs. The summary-judgment motion was never decided, so this entry reflects the parties' stipulated dismissal rather than a contested merits ruling. The order states: 'the Court finds that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.'
“ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 62); OVERRULES Fahim's objections (Doc. 64); and DENIES defendant Magid Fahim's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40).”
“GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the defendants’ motion to for summary judgment (Doc. 80). The motion is GRANTED as to Counts 1 and 2 and DENIED as moot as to Count 3 of the Third Amended Complaint;”
“GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Larson's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 277). The motion is GRANTED to the extent Belk might be asserting claims based on inadequate hypertension evaluation and treatment and DENIED to the extent Belk asserts claims of inadequate testing, evaluation, and treatment of Belk's stroke-related damage”
“GRANTS Collins's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds (Doc. 276)”
“GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the County Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 26) ... Title VII, ADA, and RA claims against the individual County Defendants [dismissed with prejudice]; ... Title VII claims for unlawful discrimination based on race and/or sex when JCMTD failed to reinstate him as a driver [dismissed]; ... [hostile work environment, failure-to-accommodate/retaliation, and FMLA claims] shall proceed”
“GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 32). Summary judgment is GRANTED on Younker's: sex/sexual orientation hostile environment harassment claims; sec.1983 equal protection claims against Wood River based on a respondeat superior theory; and disparate impact claims; The motion is DENIED in all other respects”
“DENIES the defendants' motions to strike (Docs. 40 & 45)”
“GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion to Dismiss Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint by C. Behle, J. Byram, S. Byram, M. Patterson, J. S. Walton (Doc. 39); DISMISSES defendant M. Patterson from Count I”
“DENIES the Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint by J. Byram, Nathaniel Bufford, Jr. ... (Doc. 40).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 257 days (N = 21).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 202 days (N = 3).
Counts are illustrative from a capped enumeration, not an authoritative caseload census; no authoritative caseload baseline is loaded on this record.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 9 |
| Mar 2024 | 7 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 13 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 10 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 7 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 7 | 6 |
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 Gilbert: 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 Gilbert with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gilbert, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gilbert's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace