Hanly A. Ingram
How Judge Ingram rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ingram
Hanly A. Ingram serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, with chambers in London. He earned a law degree from the University of Kentucky College of Law and clerked for federal appellate judge Eugene E. Siler Jr.
Judge Ingram's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Ingram'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).
- General Order 25-7 - Motions Under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) ↗
- General Order 23-08 - Plea Agreements and Supplements in Criminal Cases ↗
- General Order 22-15 - Standing Procedures for Social Security Actions ↗
- Joint General Order 21-1 - Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures ↗
- General Order 21-1 - Procedures for Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- General Order 14-11 - Possession and Use of Electronic Devices by Bar ↗
How Judge Ingram decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On pro se prisoner civil-rights claims, an unanswered request for admission is deemed admitted under Rule 36 and a failure to respond to a well-supported summary-judgment motion is itself grounds to grant it.
“The failure to present any evidence to counter a well-supported motion for summary judgment alone is grounds for granting the motion. ... Mr. Padgett's admissions coupled with his failure to respond to the motion for summary judgment is grounds for granting the motion.”
In a traffic-stop case, the district court adopted Ingram’s recommended finding that the officers had probable cause to believe a traffic violation was in progress.
“Even if the license plate and insurance card were entirely valid, as Plaintiffs suggest, that does not change the fact that their suspicious appearance, coupled with information from dispatch showing an invalid registration, gave rise to probable cause to stop the vehicle.”
In Section 2255 review, sworn plea-agreement and plea-colloquy admissions can defeat later ineffective-assistance allegations that counsel coerced the plea or failed to explain the evidence.
“The bulk of his claims are undermined by his admissions in his valid plea agreement.”
A pro se Section 2255 filing still must be signed under penalty of perjury and state supporting facts; conclusory ineffective-assistance allegations do not satisfy the movant's burden.
“It is not signed under penalty of perjury. It does not state facts in support of the claims. Read generously as a pro se filing, the motion falls far short of establishing deficient performance and prejudice—by a preponderance of the evidence—on any grounds raised.”
Procedural preferences
In Roberts's pretrial-detainee excessive-force case, Ingram recommended summary judgment for the deputy. He found the plaintiff had offered no evidence beyond his pleading to create a factual dispute and concluded that qualified immunity applied.
“Plaintiff Roberts has failed to offer evidence outside of the four corners of his own pleading to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Defendant Morvac's alleged use of excessive force. Because Roberts cannot demonstrate that Morvac violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity shields Morvac from suit”
In United States v. Lyttle, Ingram declined to consider § 2255 arguments first raised in the movant’s reply, citing the Sixth Circuit’s rule that arguments introduced at that stage are waived.
“The Sixth Circuit has consistently held that arguments made for the first time in a reply are waived.”
Cautions
In Foster's FTCA costs dispute, the district judge rejected Ingram's recommendation to award costs. The judge found that the recommendation had addressed the plaintiffs' ability to pay but had omitted other factors relevant to the costs decision.
“As the objection points out, Judge Ingram only addressed the Foster/Whitaker Plaintiffs' ability to pay the fine without regard to the remaining Sixth Circuit criteria. ... This was incomplete. ... the Court, in its discretion, declines to award costs to the United States.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants John Kinder and Joe Holder [R. 31] is GRANTED”
“The Motion(s) for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Sun Delin and Xu Qian [R. 27; R. 30] is DENIED”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Return of Property [R. 26] is DENIED”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions [R. 28] is DENIED”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 35] is GRANTED”
“Having ordered summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [R. 34] is DENIED AS MOOT”
“The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 64] is GRANTED”
“On May 17, 2011, the Court dismissed Defendant Gerald Wayne Collier's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Record No. 115] This dismissal followed entry of a Recommended Disposition by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. [Record No. 108]”
“Judge Ingram thus recommended that the Court grant the bill of costs, impose the costs jointly and severally, and limit costs according to formal party designations.”
“Judge Ingram thus recommended that the Court grant the bill of costs, impose the costs jointly and severally, and limit costs according to formal party designations. ... He further recommended that the Court largely deny the motion to disallow costs.”
“For the reasons explained above, the undersigned recommends that Lyttle’s § 2255 motion (D.E. 57) be DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Zulawski’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (D.E. 172) be DENIED.”
Ingram recommended finding the defendant competent after the parties stipulated to the forensic report and the evaluator's qualifications. Grounding: “the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Judge find that Defendant is competent to face further proceedings in this matter.” District Judge Robert E. Wier adopted the recommendation on March 20, 2026.
“Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Doane’s § 2255 motion (D.E. 87, 88) be DENIED on the merits.”
“Finally, the Court HEREBY ORDERS THAT Doane’s motion at Docket Entry 106 is DENIED.”
“For the reasons explained above, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS THAT HBKY’s motion (D.E. 1142) be GRANTED and Judgment be entered only as to Defendant Cumberland-Harlan Exploration Corporation, awarding HBKY $101,159.37 in damages against Defendant Cumberland-Harlan Exploration Corporation, along with uncompounded pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest as defined by statute, and any costs, provided HBKY provides adequate evidence to define and support those costs.”
“Plaintiff’s request to remand (D.E. 13) is DENIED.”
“That the government’s motion to dismiss Violations #3 and #4 be 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 | 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 Eastern District of Kentucky, not for Judge Ingram: 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 | 725 | 8.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 107 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 602 | 8.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 6 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 37.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 725 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 653 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 935 | 14 months |
| Sep 2022 | 810 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 811 | 11 months |
| Sep 2020 | 804 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,098 | 12 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 Ingram with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ingram, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ingram's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace