Stephen Chad Meredith
How Judge Meredith rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Meredith
Stephen Chad Meredith is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Meredith received a commission on November 3, 2025.
Judge Meredith's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Meredith'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 Meredith decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Ferreiras v. City of Covington, Meredith granted the officers summary judgment on the state-law claims after Ferreiras offered no argument against their qualified-immunity defense.
“Ferreiras has provided no argument to the contrary regarding her state law claims, so Officers Ullrich and Fritsch are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.”
In Singh v. Noem, Meredith denied a detained noncitizen’s § 2241 petition for a bond hearing. He read the statute to classify Singh as an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), acknowledging that many other courts had reached a different reading.
“Sometimes a widely held view is widely held because it is correct. But sometimes the few have it right. Such is the case here. Under the plain language of the relevant statute, the Petitioner is an ‘applicant for admission.’ ... Thus, because the Petitioner must be detained, he is not entitled to a bond hearing.”
In CellMark, Inc. v. Webster, Meredith denied both sides' requests for offensive summary judgment on their own claims.
“Neither party is entitled to an offensive summary judgment. Thus, those motions will be denied.”
Procedural preferences
In Keitz v. City of Covington, Meredith partially granted a motion to dismiss and allowed Keitz 14 days to file an amended complaint consistent with the opinion.
“Keitz is granted leave to file an amended complaint consistent with this Opinion within 14 days of the date of this Opinion.”
In CellMark, Inc. v. Webster, Meredith held that the parties' confidentiality agreement alone did not justify keeping the record sealed.
“[t]he existence of a confidentiality agreement is not, by itself, a reason to keep this record sealed.”
Cautions
In Ortiz Molina v. Maydak, Meredith dismissed a habeas petition without prejudice because a person who was not a licensed attorney had prepared and signed it as the petitioner's next friend. The order allowed the petitioner to file in his own name or through counsel.
“The Petitioner is free to retain counsel to prepare a proper petition, and he is also free to file a new petition in his own name. He may not, however, have an individual who is not a licensed attorney file a petition on his behalf as his ‘next friend,’ as he did here.”
Expert challenges must distinguish unreliable methodology from debatable assumptions: legal conclusions and unsupported damages periods may be excluded, while weaknesses in otherwise admissible analysis are left for cross-examination.
“There is a distinction between expert testimony that is unreliable and that which is reliable, but debatable.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, [Dkt. 76], as to all of Ferreiras’s claims.”
“the Court DENIES Ferreiras’s Motion to Exclude, [Dkt. 80], and the Defendants’ Motion to Strike, [Dkt. 78], as moot.”
“the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Dkt. 3], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Counts V, VIII, IX, and X of Keitz's Complaint, as well as her failure-to-train-or-supervise claim in Count II, [Dkt. 1], are dismissed. The remainder of her claims may proceed. Finally, Keitz is granted leave to file an amended complaint consistent with this Opinion within 14 days of the date of this Opinion.”
“The Petition, [Dkt. 1], is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Petitioner Santos Exequiel Mejia's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, [Dkt. 1], is hereby DENIED and will be dismissed with prejudice.”
“GRANTED as to the Defendant's request to waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and proceed pro se... DENIED as to the Defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea. ... DENIED AS MOOT as to the Defendant's request to extend the defensive motion deadline.”
“Granadillo-Arambule's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, [Dkt. 1], is DENIED and will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“because his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, [Dkt. 9], rises and falls with his Petition, it is hereby DENIED as moot.”
“Ricardo Perez Ramirez is a noncitizen who has been detained without bond by the Department of Homeland Security while he is undergoing removal proceedings. ... the applicable statutory language provides that he ‘shall be detained’ during removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Accordingly, his habeas petition is denied.”
“Under the plain language of the relevant statute, the Petitioner is an ‘applicant for admission.’ See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a). And the same statute requires that applicants for admission ‘shall be detained’ during removal proceedings. Id. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Thus, because the Petitioner must be detained, he is not entitled to a bond hearing. Accordingly, his habeas petition is denied.”
“Singh's Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief, [2], rises and falls with his Petition, it is hereby DENIED as moot.”
“The Petitioner’s Emergency Motion, [Dkt. 5], is hereby DENIED.”
“Petitioner Calleja Sebastian's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1, is DENIED, and his Petition will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Petitioner Calleja Sebastian's Motion to Expedite, 8, is DENIED as moot.”
“It is hereby ORDERED that Barbati's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, [Dkt. 1], is DENIED and will be DISMISSED without prejudice. If necessary, Barbati may file a new habeas petition regarding the matter raised once he has fully exhausted his administrative remedies (through the BP-11 stage).”
“Jeimy Hernandez Gomez is a noncitizen who has been detained without bond by the Department of Homeland Security while undergoing removal proceedings. She has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that it is unlawful for DHS to detain her without a bond hearing. But she is not entitled to a bond hearing. To the contrary, the applicable statutory language provides that she ‘shall be detained’ during removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Accordingly, her habeas petition is denied.”
“Gomez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED. Gomez's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 15 is DENIED. A separate Judgement will be entered.”
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 Eastern District of Kentucky, not for Judge Meredith: 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 Meredith with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Meredith, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Meredith's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace