Angel D. Mitchell
How Judge Mitchell rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mitchell
Angel D. Mitchell became a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Kansas in 2019. She earned her law degree from the University of Kansas and previously practiced intellectual property litigation at Shook, Hardy & Bacon.
Judge Mitchell's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Mitchell, 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
Discovery
Before filing a disputed discovery motion, counsel must seek a conference with the judge after conferring with opposing counsel.
“the party intending to file a discovery-related motion must email the court to arrange a telephone conference with the judge and opposing counsel.”
Discovery
Do not submit a disputed discovery motion before the conference unless the court requests it.
“Unless otherwise requested by the court, no disputed discovery-related motion, material, or argument should be filed or submitted prior this telephone conference.”
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).
- Standing Order 26-04: Immigration Habeas Cases ↗
- Standing Order 26-01: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings ↗
- Standing Order 25-04: Access, Service, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order 25-03: Suspension of Local Rule 79.4 for Civil Sealed Files ↗
- Standing Order 2021-1: Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Agents Association's Compliance with a Subpoena Duces Tecum (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice to refiling in the District of Arizona”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Babakr's Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel Defendants' Supplemental Discovery Responses (ECF 107) is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Dreiling's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel (ECF 15) is denied for the reasons stated above.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant FX Logistics, LLC's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution on Motion to Dismiss (ECF 113) is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that InVitria's Motion for Protection (ECF 236) is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that LZ's Motion to Compel Production of Documents (ECF 345) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the County’s motion to set time limits on particular depositions noticed by Frimpong-Manso (ECF 107) is granted, as set forth above.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Genesh’s motion seeking relief from the court’s June 25, 2025 order permitting L.Z. to depose Robinson for an additional four hours (ECF 404) is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Phase I Scheduling Order (ECF 95) is denied.”
The magistrate judge recommended denying leave to proceed without prepayment and alternatively dismissing the complaint. The district judge adopted the alternative recommendation and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, while denying the fee motion as moot. Because the final treatment of the motion differed from the recommendation, this R&R is retained as context and excluded from the motion statistics.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ Agreed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (ECF 31) is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to compel New Direction to produce documents being withheld under the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine (ECF 232) is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth above.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that New Direction’s motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF 256) is denied as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 309 days (N = 4).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 1 days (N = 17).
- Mitchell handles referred civil matters throughout the District of Kansas, including consolidated discovery and case-management proceedings.
- The sampled cases span civil-rights and employment disputes, contracts, insurance, fraud, and product liability.
- In consent cases she presides through judgment and signs dispositive rulings herself; in Keller v. Diversicare, for example, she denied partial summary judgment and resolved place-of-trial and pretrial motions.
- The duration figures below come from a small mix of referred and consent cases filed after her 2019 appointment.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 United States District Court for the District of Kansas, not for Judge Mitchell: 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 | 967 | 7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 225 | 4.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 645 | 6.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 83 | 18.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 22.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 967 | 7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 912 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 909 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,092 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,063 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,180 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,884 | 20.7 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 Mitchell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mitchell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mitchell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace