Staci Michelle Yandle
How Judge Yandle rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Yandle
Staci Michelle Yandle is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Yandle received a commission on June 19, 2014.
Judge Yandle's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Yandle, 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
Unless a case order sets another deadline, file motions in limine as parts of one pleading at least 21 calendar days before the final pretrial conference.
“Unless the Court, by written order or notice in a particular case, has set a different deadline, all motions in limine must be filed no later than 21 calendar days before the Final Pretrial Conference. All motions in limine shall be filed as sub-parts within a single pleading (i.e., Plaintiff's MIL #1, Plaintiff's MIL #2, etc.).”
Discovery
Bring unresolved discovery disputes by a written motion of no more than ten pages with “DISPUTED” in its title.
“All discovery disputes that cannot be informally resolved shall be brought to the Court’s attention through written motion. The motion shall be no longer than 10 pages and shall state ‘DISPUTED’ in the title.”
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 Yandle decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an FDCPA suit, Yandle denied a motion to dismiss because the complaint alleged a consumer debt and a collection letter, which she found sufficient to state a claim under Rule 8.
“Drawing inferences in Plaintiff's favor, her allegations are sufficient to meet Rule 8's liberal pleading requirements. ... Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper only if the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claims which would entitle her to relief.”
Procedural preferences
In Farris v. Jacobs, Yandle granted Dr. Lochard summary judgment on PLRA exhaustion because the prisoner identified no record facts creating a genuine dispute that he had exhausted the claim.
“Neither Plaintiff's response nor his summary judgment motion identifies any facts in the record to demonstrate the existence of a genuine material factual dispute on the issue of exhaustion. Accordingly, summary judgment in Lochard's favor is warranted.”
In Tolliver v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., she dismissed the state corrections department with prejudice as an improper defendant for prisoner injunctive relief and directed the clerk to add the Menard warden in an official capacity.
“For this reason, Defendant IDOC’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. IDOC shall be dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered accordingly at the conclusion of this litigation. However, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to add the Warden of Menard Correctional Center in their official capacity as a defendant.”
Cautions
In McGraw v. Peeks, Yandle dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff failed to answer discovery or contact the court despite a warning of that consequence.
“Plaintiff was warned that his failure to respond to the discovery requests or communicate with the Court would result in the dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) without further notice. ... this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For this reason, Defendant IDOC's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. IDOC shall be dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered accordingly at the conclusion of this litigation. However, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to add the Warden of Menard Correctional Center in their official capacity as a defendant.”
“Drawing inferences in Plaintiff's favor, her allegations are sufficient to meet Rule 8's liberal pleading requirements. ... Here, there are sufficient factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint to allow her FDCPA claim to proceed against the Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Dr. Hughes Lochard on exhaustion of administrative remedies (Doc. 56) is GRANTED. Defendant Lochard is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Evidence (Doc. 60) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, 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 and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.”
“Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and to enter judgment accordingly.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“Defendant Illini's Amended Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 44) and the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 54) are DENIED.”
“Counsel's Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 63) is GRANTED”
“the Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence (Doc. 60) is DENIED.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss. As no Counts remain pending against these Defendants, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (Doc. No. 89) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ... The motion is denied in all other respects.”
“Plaintiff's motion for de novo review (Doc. No. 178) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 54) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
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 | 3 |
| 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 | 42 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 42 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 37 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 38 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 42 |
| Mar 2024 | 6 | 38 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 42 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 53 |
| Sep 2022 | 33 | 74 |
| Mar 2022 | 27 | 75 |
| Sep 2021 | 8 | 71 |
| Mar 2021 | 35 | 66 |
| Sep 2020 | 38 | 78 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, not for Judge Yandle: 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 Yandle with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Yandle, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Yandle's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace