Rachel E. Schwartz
How Judge Schwartz rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Schwartz
Rachel E. Schwartz has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Kansas since 2022. She earned her law degree from the University of Michigan and previously practiced complex litigation as a partner at Stueve Siegel Hanson.
Judge Schwartz's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Schwartz'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 Schwartz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Coon v. Trans Am, Schwartz recommended denying a request to proceed without prepaying fees. The applicant reported a $1,163 monthly surplus, more than the $405 filing fee, although he had no cash on hand. She recommended allowing 30 days to pay.
“Based on the figures provided by Plaintiff, it appears that his monthly income exceeds his monthly expenses by $1,163, which exceeds the $405 filing fee for civil cases.”
In Canfield v. Wright, Schwartz recommended dismissing the federal claims at screening for failure to state a claim and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. The plaintiff had not used an earlier opportunity to amend after receiving written notice of the pleading defects.
“It would be futile to give Plaintiff another opportunity to amend because the Court already gave Plaintiff the opportunity to amend her complaint to address the concerns the Court detailed in writing to Plaintiff, but she declined.”
In Canfield v. Wright, Schwartz recommended dismissal of the § 1983 claim against Wright because the complaint did not allege that Wright acted under color of state law; she also recommended declining jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.
“There are no allegations that Defendant Wright acted under color of law or abused any power that they possess by virtue of state law. This alone warrants dismissal of any § 1983 claim Plaintiff may be raising against Defendant Wright.”
Procedural preferences
In Canfield v. Wright, Schwartz recommended dismissal after Canfield declined an earlier opportunity to amend despite written notice of the complaint's defects; she found another opportunity futile.
“It would be futile to give Plaintiff another opportunity to amend because the Court already gave Plaintiff the opportunity to amend her complaint to address the concerns the Court detailed in writing to Plaintiff, but she declined. The Court therefore recommends dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim.”
In MidAmerica v. First Health, Schwartz denied leave to file a third amended complaint after the scheduling deadline. She found no Rule 16 good cause because the plaintiff waited more than a month after a deposition it said revealed new information; she also found undue delay and prejudice to the defendant.
“Plaintiff simply has not demonstrated good cause for its failure to act expeditiously following the January 28, 2025 deposition. For this reason alone, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.”
In Huffman v. Forest River, Schwartz denied deposition sanctions after finding some suggestive objections by defense counsel but also uncivil conduct by the movant and a delay in seeking a discovery conference.
“Had Plaintiff sought a discovery conference during the deposition, the Court doubts that the present motion would be necessary. This is the purpose of D. Kan. Rule 37.1(a).”
In Cash Today v. MTE, Schwartz denied the plaintiff's second motion to compel as untimely under the local discovery rule and also found no basis to doubt the defendant's statement that no further responsive documents existed.
“Finding the present Motion timely would thwart the very purpose of the Rule—to quickly address discovery disputes well in advance of the discovery deadline.”
In Ikona v. AHC of Overland Park, Schwartz partly granted a motion to strike an amended expert rebuttal report, allowing paragraphs that answered the defense experts and excluding paragraphs that bolstered the plaintiff's initial case.
“In situations like this, the appropriate course is to limit the proposed rebuttal expert's testimony rather than striking it altogether.”
Cautions
In Jacques's criminal case, Schwartz denied a motion to reopen detention. She found the proposed inpatient treatment did not overcome the defendant's prior difficulty complying with release conditions and expressed concern about her candor with an evaluator.
“Defendant’s lack of candor with her evaluator gives the Court serious concerns about the sincerity of Defendant’s desire to participate in inpatient treatment at this time.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge deny the Application and direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty days of an order on this Report and Recommendation.”
Schwartz's signed 18-page R&R recommended sua sponte dismissal of a pro se in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim and declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. Her detailed Section 1983 analysis found that the plaintiff named defendants only by label, alleged no facts showing what each defendant did or that they acted under color of state law, and cited constitutional provisions such as the Eleventh Amendment that created no private right of action. The court had already given her a chance to amend, which she did not take, so further amendment would be futile. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree's Memorandum & Order (read in full) ACCEPTING, ADOPTING, and AFFIRMING Schwartz's 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) screening R&R (her Doc. 15, 2024-10-15) dismissing plaintiff's federal claims for failure to state a claim and declining supplemental jurisdiction; the same order also AFFIRMED Schwartz's Order (Doc. 20) denying plaintiff's motion to recuse (the recusal motion itself is captured with dates in the broader docket record). A screening dismissal on no party motion. This document was signed by Judge Crabtree, so it is recorded as Schwartz's recommendation adopted.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on August 30, 2024, is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and AFFIRMED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 3) is DENIED.”
District Judge John W. Broomes's Memorandum & Order (read in full) ADOPTING Schwartz's R&R (her Doc. 12, 2022-06-21) recommending dismissal of a pro se complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: no complete diversity between the parties and no federal question. A sua sponte jurisdictional dismissal on no party motion. The order was signed by Judge Broomes; it is recorded as Schwartz's recommendation adopted.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 146, is DENIED.”
District Judge Julie A. Robinson's Order (read in full) ACCEPTING and ADOPTING Schwartz's R&R (her Doc. 11, 2025-09-09) recommending dismissal without prejudice of Defendant Sylvan Learning Center under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), after plaintiff did not respond to Schwartz's own show-cause order about the unserved defendant. A sua sponte Rule 4(m) dismissal on no party motion. This document was signed by Judge Robinson; it is recorded as Schwartz's recommendation adopted.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, ECF No. 3, is DENIED without prejudice to refiling on or before January 16, 2026.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend, ECF No. 83, is GRANTED. Defendant must file its Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses, ECF No. 83-1, within two business days from the date of this order.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Donna L. Huffman's Motion for Findings of Deposition Misconduct and Sanctions, ECF No. 122, is DENIED.”
Schwartz's signed 35-page Memorandum and Order in a referral case assigned to District Judge Julie A. Robinson resolved the court's own show-cause order over the defendants' violation of the operative protective order through disclosure of attorneys'-eyes-only expert reports. She publicly admonished defense counsel as the sanction, rejected the plaintiff's request for a $96,967.33 fee award, and denied expedited third-party discovery into the scope of the violation as disproportionate. The disposition arose from the court's show-cause order rather than a discrete party motion.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel Production of Documents (ECF No. 108) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 94 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 5 days (N = 5).
The sampled matters consist mainly of short criminal-magistrate proceedings, such as initial appearances and complaints, together with civil referrals from district judges. The Hubbard matter analyzed below is a pro se civil-rights complaint referred to Schwartz.
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 |
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 Schwartz: 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 Schwartz with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Schwartz, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Schwartz's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace