Jane Elizabeth Magnus-Stinson
How Judge Magnus-Stinson rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Magnus-Stinson
Jane Elizabeth Magnus-Stinson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Magnus-Stinson received a commission on June 9, 2010. Judge Magnus-Stinson assumed senior status on July 1, 2024.
Judge Magnus-Stinson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Magnus-Stinson, 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
Filing
Provide a paper courtesy copy when an individual filing, including exhibits, exceeds 50 pages.
“When an individual filing (including exhibits) is in excess of 50 pages, a party shall provide a paper courtesy copy”
Motions
For motions other than summary judgment, supporting and response briefs are limited to 20 pages and replies to 10 pages absent leave.
“For any other type of motion, however, supporting and response briefs (excluding tables of contents, tables of authorities, appendices, and certificates of services) may not exceed 20 pages and reply briefs may not exceed 10 pages”
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).
- General Order Re: Procedures for Sealed Filings ↗
- General Order Re: Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Order Regarding Prisoner Electronic Filing Program ↗
- General Order/Administrative Policy 2024-35 - Electronic Submissions to the Court by Pro Se Litigants ↗
- General Order Re: Presentation of Contaminated Materials for Filing ↗
How Judge Magnus-Stinson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a disability appeal, the court required the administrative judge to put moderate concentration, persistence, and pace limitations into the vocational expert’s hypothetical questions before relying on the job evidence.
“the ALJ must include moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace in his hypothetical questions to the VE and the ALJ did not do so here. For this additional reason, remand is required.”
In one benefits-fee award, the court declined to treat efficient representation as a windfall when reviewing a requested fee from past-due benefits.
“not penalize Scott F.'s counsel for efficiently handling Scott F.'s case.”
Procedural preferences
After finding an immigration bond hearing lacked due process, the court ordered a new hearing and declined the petitioner’s request for immediate release.
“They are denied to the extent that Ms. Brena seeks immediate release. Rather, the Court orders that Ms. Brena have a second de novo bond hearing that complies with Mathews”
Cautions
In one compassionate-release case, the court treated the sentencing factors as an independent basis for denial after also finding no extraordinary reason and an unresolved public-safety concern.
“Consideration of the § 3553(a) factors provides an independent basis for denying Mr. Noble's Motion for Compassionate Release.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because Mr. Hayes's contention that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to his multiple convictions and consecutive sentences on double jeopardy grounds is not subject to dismissal, Respondent's second motion to dismiss, dkt. [15], is denied.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, [156], and Second Motion to Enforcement Settlement Agreement, [163,] are GRANTED. The Settlement Agreement reached between the parties is binding and enforceable and final judgement against Defendants in the amount of $275,000 will be issued by separate order.”
1915(e)(2) screening of a pro se Title VII complaint (Black employee alleging a racially hostile work environment). IFP granted. Hostile-work-environment claim against the EMPLOYER shall proceed, but conditioned on an amended complaint with corrected EEOC dates and a Right-to-Sue letter; Title VII claims against the four INDIVIDUAL defendants DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (no individual liability under Title VII, Williams v. Banning; amendment futile, Arreola). As a screening order, it is excluded from the motion statistics and counted only as an order read.
“The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [dkt. 9] is GRANTED, and plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice.”
“Because there is no sanction affecting the fact or duration of confinement in this case, the petition must be dismissed as moot. The respondent's motion to dismiss [dkt. 6] is granted.”
“The Court GRANTS Chicago Title's motion to dismiss to the extent that 1) all claims against NWJ are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and 2) all claims against Mr. Jekogian, except for the claim on which the Court entered summary judgment in favor of Chicago Title for $343,301.39, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Chicago Title's Motion to Enter Summary Judgment as a Final Judgment is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [24] is denied without prejudice.”
“the plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction [3, 5, 6] are denied. The court has not acquired in personam jurisdiction over the remaining defendants.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Mr. Hayes' Motion to Remand, [Filing No. 10], and REMANDS this matter to the Marion Superior Court.”
“For the reasons detailed above, the Court GRANTS Mr. King's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 128], and DENIES Marion Circuit Court's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 141].”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART Mr. Rees' pending motion, [Filing No. 46], and concludes that it is appropriate for it to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Rees' remaining state law claims. Those claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).”
“For these reasons, the Court DENIED Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. [Filing No. 59.]”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 374.0 days (N = 8).
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Indiana, not for Judge Magnus-Stinson: 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 | 2,443 | 11.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 70 | 2.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,083 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,283 | 26.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 7 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,443 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,243 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,050 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,896 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,988 | 11.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,419 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,168 | 8.2 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 Magnus-Stinson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Magnus-Stinson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Magnus-Stinson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace