John E. Martin
How Judge Martin rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Martin
John E. Martin has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Indiana’s Hammond Division since March 2013. Before his appointment, he was a deputy federal community defender and worked in private practice and local prosecution.
Judge Martin's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Martin, 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
Conferences
For a criminal preliminary or detention hearing, confer and advise the court about any stipulation or continuance request.
“the parties are directed to confer and advise the Court if the defendant is stipulating to the existence of probable cause and/or detention”
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 Martin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reviewed insurance-coverage case, Martin resolved coverage under the claims-in-process exclusion and declined to decide the disputed pollution-exclusion question.
“So the Court need not rule on whether the policy’s pollution exclusion bars coverage in order to resolve this case, and the Court declines to do so.”
In the reviewed FELA action, Martin allowed a jury to weigh circumstantial evidence that an oversized ballast stone caused the injury, applying the statute's rule that railroad negligence need only play the slightest part and declining to choose between competing factual inferences at summary judgment.
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 31]”
Procedural preferences
In the reviewed disability appeal, Martin found fault with discounting mental-health limitations without asking why the claimant had not sought more treatment.
“However, the ALJ did not ask Plaintiff about her perceived failure to seek adequate treatment”
In the reviewed railroad case, Martin examined a poorly organized response for actual factual disputes but reminded counsel to comply with the local summary-judgment rules.
“In the interest of justice, the Court has attempted to ascertain areas of dispute, but reminds counsel of the importance of complying with applicable rules.”
On a repeated Social Security remand, Martin applied law-of-the-case principles where the agency again relied on jobs requiring reasoning abilities inconsistent with the claimant's established limitation to simple instructions and supplied no compelling reason to depart from the earlier judicial decision.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the relief requested in Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 12] and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In the reviewed employment case, Martin required the administrative charge to identify enough conduct and responsible individuals to provide notice and permit conciliation; a bare general statement of race discrimination did not exhaust later discrimination and hostile-environment theories.
“Plaintiff's EEOC charge only stated a generalized belief of discrimination on the basis of race without describing any specific conduct, occurrences, or particular individuals.”
In Keeble, Martin remanded when the administrative law judge replaced a restriction to brief interactions with occasional interactions without explaining the change. Alternative arguments by the Commissioner could not supply the missing rationale.
“The ALJ’s decision stands or falls on the reasoning provided by the ALJ and not on other arguments provided by the Commissioner.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court hereby GRANTS Norfolk Southern's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 31] and ORDERS that judgment in this matter be entered in favor of Defendant Norfolk Southern Railroad.”
“The Court accordingly GRANTS Atlantic’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 23] and DENIES Defendants Juan and Maria Garcias’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [DE 25].”
“REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 43].”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 31]”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the relief requested in Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [DE 12] and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the relief requested in Plaintiff’s Opening Brief [DE 15] and AFFIRMS the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision.”
“GRANTS the Sheriff Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 31]”
“The Court further RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY as moot Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 10].”
“GRANTS the Motion for to File Amended Complaint [DE 15]”
“GRANTS the defendants’ summary judgment motion [DE 26]”
“GRANTS the defendants’ motion for summary judgment [DE 36]”
“REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 3 |
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 Northern District of Indiana, not for Judge Martin: 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 | 1,338 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 68 | 2.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 958 | 7.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 302 | 14.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 43.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,338 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,336 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,248 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,434 | 12.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,258 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,408 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,576 | 13.8 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 Martin with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Martin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Martin's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace