John Phil Gilbert
How Judge Gilbert decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A claim that already cleared sec.1915A threshold screening will usually survive a later Rule 12(b)(6) motion, because he treats the two standards as 'virtually the same'; he reserves fact-bound questions (here, the timing/extent of a prisoner's physical injury) for discovery and dispositive motions rather than resolving them at the pleadings.
“Counts 9 and 10 already survived screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a legal standard that is virtually the same as Rule 12(b)(6)”
Procedural preferences
He enforces SDIL Local Rule 7.1(c) strictly: a party who fails to respond to a summary-judgment motion (even after a Rule 56(e) notice and a show-cause order) is treated as admitting the motion's merits, and the case can be dismissed with prejudice on that basis.
“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.”
On a Monell / civil-conspiracy / RICO complaint he applies Twombly/Iqbal rigorously: conclusory 'labels and conclusions' and a bare assertion that a policy exists do not survive; a sec.1985 conspiracy among a city's own officials is barred by the intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine.
“A naked statement that a policy or practice exists and caused a constitutional violation is not enough to withstand a motion to dismiss.”
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.
Put Judge Gilbert's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Gilbert actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Gilbert's own signed orders and cites them.