Eric Franklin Melgren
How Judge Melgren rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Melgren
Eric F. Melgren is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Melgren received a commission on October 6, 2008. Judge Melgren assumed senior status on September 1, 2025.
Judge Melgren's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Melgren, 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
File motions through ECF, including during trial or a hearing.
“Motions may not be filed with the court during trial or hearing, or by fax or letter, in circumvention of ECF filing.”
Filing
Attach the proposed pleading to a motion for leave to file out of time; file the pleading separately if leave is granted.
“Pleadings filed out of the time established by the local rules should be accompanied by a motion for leave to file out of time, with the proposed pleading attached to the motion.”
Motions
Request oral argument by motion and explain how it would help resolve the issues.
“they should affirmably file a motion seeking oral argument. Oral argument should only be sought upon a showing of why it would assist the Court in resolving the issues.”
Sealing
A protective order or stipulation alone does not justify sealing; seek leave and explain the specific harm from public access.
“Documents will not be automatically approved for filing under seal merely because they were produced pursuant to a protective order, nor because both parties stipulate to filing under seal.”
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 ↗
How Judge Melgren decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In MidAmerica Division v. First Health Group, he rejected a breach theory under Article 1.6 of the provider agreement because that provision imposed no duty concerning payors' compliance with Article 5.
“However, Article 1.6 of the Provider Agreement, only requires First Health to ensure the payors comply with the terms and conditions of Article 4. It does not impose a similar duty on First Health related to payors’ compliance with Article 5.”
He left concerns about a damages expert’s long-past law-enforcement work to cross-examination and limiting arguments instead of excluding the testimony.
“may be sufficiently addressed on cross-examination and through limiting arguments.”
In an arbitration dispute, the court declined to appoint a replacement arbitrator after the designated provider refused administration because the moving party had failed to maintain its status with the provider. Keep the named forum available through compliance before seeking to enforce the clause.
“It cannot be said that the AAA was unavailable because the AAA would have heard Plaintiff’s case but for Defendant’s failure to maintain its status with it.”
Procedural preferences
In Holman v. Future Growth, LLC, he granted a motion to dismiss as uncontested under D. Kan. R. 7.1(c) after the response deadline passed without a response or extension request.
“Defendants did not request an extension to respond, the deadline for them to respond has passed, and they have not filed a response to the Movants’ motion. Thus, consistent with D. Kan. R. 7.1(c), the Court considers and decides the Movants’ motion as uncontested.”
Holds pro se litigants to the same rules of procedure as represented parties while construing their filings with some leniency; uncontroverted facts under the summary-judgment local rules are taken as true against the non-responding party.
“Plaintiff is pro se, and the Court must afford him some leniency in his filings. A pro se litigant, however, is still expected to ‘follow the same rules of procedure that’ apply to represented parties.”
Melgren denied leave for a second summary-judgment motion that offered arguments available when the movant filed its first motion.
“It simply seeks to raise additional arguments that Crescent Power failed to include in its first motion.”
Cautions
On remand in an employment case, the additional affidavit passages did not establish pretext sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
“seven sentences the Tenth Circuit remanded this case on do not establish pretext in the Board’s decision”
In Fuller v. Heartland Rehabilitation Hospital, Melgren ordered the hospital to pay fees incurred after it failed to correct an inaccurate corporate disclosure when responding to a jurisdictional show-cause order. He left the amount for itemization and objections.
“All these fees could have been avoided had HRH candidly disclosed the falsity of the Gowing affidavit in its reply to the Second Order to Show Cause.”
In United States v. Vontress, Melgren rejected a Section 2255 sentencing-disparity argument that compared only codefendants in one conspiracy. The petitioner did not address nationwide disparities among defendants with similar records and guideline calculations.
“Vontress’s argument never references nationwide disparities but only reflects on the disparities within the conspiracy itself.”
In Barnes, after repeated postjudgment motions asserting an argument already rejected, Melgren denied the fourth motion and imposed limited filing restrictions while allowing time to object.
“In light of these factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff is likely to continue to abuse the judicial process and that it is appropriate to impose limited filing restrictions on Plaintiff.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Schmanke’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants K-1 Hospitality’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) is DENIED as MOOT.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant First Health’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 96) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Cox’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I-IV (Doc. 99) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Black Diamond Angus Ranch Partnership’s, Black Diamond Angus Ranch LLC’s, Warner Angus Morgans’s, and Warner Angus Ranch’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Wisler and Xpressions’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Trevino’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Sedgwick County’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of Wichita’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29) is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ ‘Motion to Vacate Void Judgment’ (Doc. 39) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Tim Fielder’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Millers’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED.”
“Crescent Power’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 94) is DENIED.”
“Defendants (fnu) Bell, (fnu) Koob, (fnu) Fox, and (fnu) Moore’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Remand (Doc. 71) is GRANTED.”
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 5 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 9 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 7 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 6 |
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 Melgren: 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 Melgren with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Melgren, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Melgren's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace