Jennifer B. Wieland
How Judge Wieland rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wieland
Jennifer B. Wieland became a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Kansas in March 2026, succeeding Teresa J. James. A graduate of the University of Virginia and its law school, she previously practiced complex federal civil litigation in Kansas City.
Judge Wieland's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Wieland's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Wieland decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When evaluating amendment, Wieland credited a proposed pleading that clarified existing claims, removed another claim, and would not require significant new discovery.
“The proposed amendment does not add claims, and actually drops one claim, so allowing it should not require significant additional discovery and should streamline further motion practice.”
In a nonparty subpoena dispute, she granted the motion to quash after the requesting plaintiffs did not respond or establish relevance and the requests appeared overly broad.
“Plaintiffs failed to respond to the Motion to Quash, and have not demonstrated the relevance of the discovery sought.”
Procedural preferences
In Dahl v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority, Wieland found that counsel's speaking objections suggested answers and tended to coach the witness; she ordered a reconvened deposition and shifted its costs.
“both constituted improper speaking objections that suggested answers and tended to coach the witness.”
In Earnshaw, Wieland allowed tracked courier service of deposition subpoenas after documented attempts to serve the witnesses personally, and required delivery confirmation with the proof of service.
“Based upon Plaintiff’s efforts to serve the witnesses, the Court finds alternative service to be appropriate.”
Cautions
Requests for appointed counsel in civil cases face a high threshold because the court must rely on willing volunteer counsel.
“For these reasons, the appointment of counsel in a civil case is rare.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“National Content & Technology Cooperative’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses From Defendants Chapter and Christopher Jackson (Dkt. 115) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“the Parties’ Joint Motion to Enter Protective Order (Dkt. 112) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony and for Remedial Relief Regarding Defendant KU Health’s Improper Deposition Objections (Dkt. 55) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Plaintiff Q’Nika Union’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 31) is denied without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 39) is denied without prejudice.”
“JCFP’s motion to compel RFPs 4, 20 and 22 is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 53) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set out above.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 78) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and File Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 59) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (Dkts. 79 and 80) are denied without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order for Harassment and Stalking (Dkt. 19) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration of Wet Ink Signature Requirement (Dkt. 39) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Request for Protection Order and Notice of Escalating Retaliation, Interference, and Safety Threats (Dkt. 43) ... are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Recognize Interference, Retaliation, and Evidence Destruction as Proof of Wrongdoing and Consciousness of Guilt (Dkt. 44) ... are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Immediate Judicial Intervention Due to Ongoing Interference, Retaliation, and Impediments to Accessing the Courts (Dkt. 46) ... are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 48) ... are DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The exact assigned-name records were recent criminal initial-appearance matters. This very small, duty-focused set is not representative of Wieland's inherited civil docket.
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 |
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 District of Kansas, not for Judge Wieland: 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 Wieland with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wieland, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wieland's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace