Mark Andrew Beatty
How Judge Beatty rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Beatty
Mark Andrew Beatty became a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Illinois in January 2019. Before joining the bench, he was an assistant state’s attorney, clerked for a federal district judge, and practiced civil litigation.
Judge Beatty's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Beatty, 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.
Key rules
Motions
File motions in limine 21 days before the final pretrial conference; responses are due 14 days after filing.
“Motions in Limine shall be filed 21 days prior to the final pretrial conference. Responses to the motions shall be filed 14 days after the filing of the motion.”
Discovery
Do not file a motion to compel discovery unless the court directs the parties to do so.
“Motions to Compel discovery should not be filed unless the parties are directed to do so 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 Beatty decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a prisoner's civil-rights case, Beatty recruited counsel after considering the seriousness of the alleged injuries and the plaintiff's difficulty presenting the complaint in English.
“Given the severity of the allegations, and to promote an efficient resolution of Plaintiff's claims, the Court finds it best to assign counsel to assist with this matter.”
In Oberst v. R. Movahed, DMD, P.C., he denied the out-of-state dentists' jurisdiction motion after finding that they maintained a referral relationship with an Illinois surgeon, collaborated on treatment, and communicated with him in Illinois.
“Based on these facts, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction over the Hockel Defendants.”
In Frakes v. Dodd, Beatty denied exhaustion summary judgment after finding evidence that prison staff rejected Frakes’s grievances without reaching their merits while an investigation remained open, gave no timeline, and identified no path for recourse.
“Mr. Frakes’s grievances, however, were summarily denied without any consideration of their merit because the investigation into the incident was not complete. Moreover, Mr. Frakes was not provided with any information about the timeline of the investigation and when it might conclude. Nor was he told if he would even be notified when the investigation concluded, or if he had any other avenue for recourse. The prison, in essence, refused to hear his claim.”
Procedural preferences
In Rachel S., Beatty reversed and remanded a child disability denial because the ALJ ignored relevant school and behavioral evidence and relied on state consultants who had reviewed the record before those later developments.
“The ALJ completely ignored the October 2018 IEP conference report.”
In Johnson v. Mills, Beatty recommended summary judgment for the medical defendants after finding that treatment of the prisoner’s foot injury reflected medical judgment rather than deliberate indifference. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
“a defendant can carry its summary judgment burden by pointing to an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the plaintiff's case without actually submitting any evidence”
In Hernandez v. Mitchell, he denied both sides' summary judgment motions on deliberate indifference because the evidence permitted competing inferences about whether Desai's treatment of a hand injury reflected professional judgment or prolonged pain.
“Given that there is evidence pointing in both directions and a reasonable jury could find in favor of either Plaintiff or Desai, neither party is entitled to summary judgment.”
In Zhu v. Keeley & Sons, Beatty declined to exclude Ms. Albers’s expert testimony. He found that the defendant’s challenges to the completeness of her analysis could be tested through cross-examination.
“Defendant Keeley may raise the challenges discussed above through cross-examination, but none of those challenges merit the exclusion of Ms. Albers’s expert testimony.”
In Singleton, Beatty denied an unopposed exhaustion motion because the defendants’ own log identified potentially relevant grievances they had not supplied or addressed, leaving remedy availability in dispute.
“Given the unanswered questions about these two grievances, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing there is no dispute of material fact that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit.”
In Burns, Beatty treated the early right-to-sue letter dispute as exceeding the face of the pleadings and declined to dismiss on an affirmative exhaustion defense that the complaint did not establish.
“whether the EEOC has the authority to grant an early Notice of Right to Sue letter is an issue well beyond the face of the pleadings and thus not appropriate for the Court to consider in a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”
Cautions
In Kincaid-Hicks v. Wicks, he denied a § 2241 petition after the petitioner failed to exhaust prison remedies and offered a general futility claim without showing that those remedies were inadequate, ineffective, or would cause irreparable harm.
“Ms. Kincaid-Hicks has not met the heavy burden of establishing why futility justified her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Defendants Brian J. Hockel, DDS and Brian Hockel, DDS, P.C. (Doc. 80) is DENIED.”
“This ruling in turn renders Plaintiff's motion to change venue (Doc. 87) MOOT.”
“The Commissioner's final decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for rehearing and reconsideration of the evidence, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.”
“ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 78); OVERRULES Johnson's objections (Doc. 85); GRANTS the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 69)”
“Defendants' motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Docs. 78, 80, and 81) are GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice”
“ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 43); and DENIES the St. Clair County Sheriff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Doc. 18).”
“For these reasons, Ms. Kincaid-Hicks has not met the heavy burden of establishing why futility justified her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. Therefore, her petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED (Doc. 1) and this cause of action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 70) is DENIED. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72) is likewise DENIED.”
“Defendants Justin Warren and Jordan Heckler’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 70) is DENIED.”
“Their motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Doc. 71) is likewise DENIED.”
After dismissing the complaint without prejudice and allowing amendment, the court dismissed the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) when the plaintiff missed the amended-complaint deadline, sought no extension, and had been warned of the consequence.
“For the reasons discussed above, Defendant Keeley & Sons, Inc.’s Daubert Motions seeking to exclude the expert reports, testimony, and opinions of Michelle Albers (Doc. 145), Dr. Richard Bowman (Doc. 146), and Dr. Helena Breuer (Doc. 148) are DENIED.”
“For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies is DENIED (Doc. 28).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 224 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 319 days (N = 6).
Counts are illustrative from a capped enumeration, not an authoritative caseload census. A recurring pattern in the sampled consent docket: contested civil cases frequently resolve at a court-hosted settlement conference or by stipulated voluntary dismissal rather than on a dispositive motion (e.g. Edwards, Romaine, Russell).
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 | 2 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 11 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 14 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 17 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 22 |
| Mar 2023 | 6 | 26 |
| Sep 2022 | 6 | 22 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 21 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 20 |
| Mar 2021 | 9 | 27 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 20 |
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 Beatty: 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 Beatty with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Beatty, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Beatty's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace