Jon E. DeGuilio
How Judge DeGuilio rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge DeGuilio
Jon Ernest DeGuilio is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge DeGuilio received a commission on May 13, 2010. Judge DeGuilio assumed senior status on July 17, 2023.
Judge DeGuilio's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge DeGuilio, 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 at least 14 days before the final pretrial conference.
“Motions in limine must be filed at least 14 days before the final pretrial conference.”
Motions
Submit one motion in limine per side, which may raise multiple points.
“The Court limits each side to a single motion in limine, but does not limit the number of points that a motion can raise.”
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 DeGuilio decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Grants a motion to bar contribution claims against settling defendants, giving effect to a good-faith settlement.
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Koczur and the Settling Defendants' Motion to Bar Contribution Claims [26]. Accordingly, all contribution claims against the Settling Defendants ... are hereafter barred.”
He rejects a habeas petition when the requested relief concerns conditions or privileges rather than the fact or duration of custody, and declines conversion where a civil-rights action would be futile under the three-strikes filing bar.
“For these reasons, the court DENIES the habeas corpus petition (ECF 1) pursuant to Habeas Rule 4 because it does not state a valid basis for habeas relief;”
In the reviewed disciplinary-habeas ruling, DeGuilio treated a conduct report and corroborating video as sufficient evidence, found a denied photograph request harmless, and rejected self-defense, double-jeopardy, and internal-policy timing theories as bases for federal habeas relief.
“DENIES the habeas corpus petition (ECF 1)”
In the reviewed ERISA ruling, he remanded for a full and fair review when the administrator did not give a coherent explanation for rejecting evidence, but declined to reinstate benefits because the record did not establish an unequivocal entitlement.
“Here, remand is required, as the record is not unequivocal as to whether Ms. Boxell is disabled due to a condition not subject to a 2-year limitation under the Plan.”
He limited a forum-selection clause to claims that required interpretation of the underlying agreement, dismissing the contract count while allowing factually independent trademark and unfair-competition claims to proceed.
“Therefore, these claims do not arise under, in connection with, or in relation to the contract, so the forum-selection clause does not apply.”
Procedural preferences
Denies a motion to dismiss as moot when the operative pleading or posture has changed, rather than reaching its merits.
“Solidquote's motion to dismiss [22] is DENIED as moot.”
He enforces the prisoner three-strikes rule when the complaint alleges no genuine imminent danger, and may impose filing restrictions where a litigant seeks pauper status despite prior notice that the statutory bar applies.
“DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Rodolfo Antonio Lopez, Jr., sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);”
He permitted contemporaneous video testimony where an unexpected injury made travel painful, the witness's testimony was limited, postponing a five-year-old case would impair the interests of justice, and safeguards could preserve identification, audibility, visibility, and freedom from outside influence.
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion (DE 275).”
In habeas proceedings, DeGuilio denied default judgment where no order had yet required the respondent to answer, while allowing the self-represented petitioner an opportunity to amend a petition that challenged a state-court transfer rather than custody under federal law.
“For these reasons, the court (1) DENIES the motion for default judgment (ECF 7)”
He declined dismissal as a discovery sanction where supplemental disclosures and a schedule extension could cure the violation, particularly because the moving party's own decision not to pursue discovery contributed to the delay; he still required compliance and awarded reasonable fees.
“The Court therefore concludes that dismissal is not appropriate as a sanction under these circumstances.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Koczur and the Settling Defendants' Motion to Bar Contribution Claims [26]. Accordingly, all contribution claims against the Settling Defendants ... are hereafter barred.”
“Solidquote's motion to dismiss [22] is DENIED as moot.”
“For these reasons, the court: (1) DENIES the habeas corpus petition (ECF 1); (2) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment and close this case; and (3) DENIES Michael Matthews leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.”
“For these reasons, the court DENIES the habeas corpus petition (ECF 1) pursuant to Habeas Rule 4 because it does not state a valid basis for habeas relief;”
“For these reasons, the court ... DENIES the motion for injunctive relief (ECF 2);”
“For these reasons, the court: (1) DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Rodolfo Antonio Lopez, Jr., sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); (2) DENIES Rodolfo Antonio Lopez, Jr., leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2);”
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion (DE 275).”
“GRANTS the motion for leave to file ex parte and under seal (ECF 13)”
“DENIES the motion for leave to file under seal (ECF 11)”
“GRANTS the motion to file evidence (ECF 17)”
“Martin also filed a motion seeking a ruling on the habeas petition, which the court denies as unnecessary and moot.”
“DENIES the habeas corpus petition (ECF 1)”
“For these reasons, the court (1) DENIES the motion for default judgment (ECF 7)”
“For the foregoing reasons, Bowman Heintz’s motion for summary judgment [DE 19] is DENIED, and Valiant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED [DE 22].”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue is GRANTED in part and DENIED IN PART. Count III, alleging breach of contract, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may proceed in this action on Counts I and II.”
“Northern Tool’s motion [DE 38] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court DENIES Northern Tool’s request to dismiss this case or exclude evidence of damages. However, the Court ORDERS the Plaintiff to supplement his Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures within 14 days, completing all of the required items to the best of his current knowledge.”
“The Court DENIES the Plan’s motions to strike [DE 46, 50] and Ms. Boxell’s motion for leave to amend her complaint [DE 54].”
“The Court GRANTS Ms. Boxell’s motion for summary judgment [DE 38], and REMANDS this matter to the plan administrator to determine, after conducting a full and fair review, whether Ms. Boxell is entitled to Long Term Disability Benefits after September 28, 2011.”
“Finally, the Court DENIES the Plan’s motion for summary judgment [DE 40] as to Ms. Boxell’s claim, but GRANTS that motion as to the Plan’s counterclaim, and enters judgment in the Plan’s favor on its counterclaim in the amount of $12,828.”
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 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 20 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 20 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 22 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 16 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 19 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 14 |
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 DeGuilio: 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 DeGuilio with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge DeGuilio, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge DeGuilio's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace