Charles Ralph Simpson III
How Judge Simpson rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Simpson
Charles Ralph Simpson, III is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Simpson received a commission on August 4, 1986. Judge Simpson assumed senior status on February 1, 2013.
Judge Simpson's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Simpson'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).
How Judge Simpson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a criminal civil-rights prosecution over the manner of a fatal search-warrant execution, the judge required the government to trace an officer's specific use of force to the alleged constitutional violation as its legal cause: when a co-occupant's gunfire, not the defendant's own shots, provoked the fatal return fire, that intervening act broke the chain of causation the felony charge required.
“K.W.'s opening fire became the proximate, i.e., the legal, cause of Taylor's death because that exercise of lethal force usurped control over the circumstances and directly led to Taylor's fatal wounding by drawing return fire.”
In Blue Spirits Distilling v. Luctor International, Simpson rejected veil piercing against affiliated companies because the complaint alleged no facts supporting that theory.
“Blue Spirits' argument falls flat because it did not plead any factual allegations to support a corporate veil piercing claim, nor did its Amended Complaint contemplate same.”
In White v. Schneider Hotels, Simpson found that White had abandoned her race-based claims in her deposition testimony. He also treated her failure to respond to the defense argument as a waiver of opposition.
“White’s testimony shows that she has abandoned her race-based claims. Also, by failing to respond to Defendants’ argument, she waived her opposition to it.”
In a credit-reporting claim, treated a charged-off account with a zero balance as accurate because it told creditors that the debt had been charged off and that the borrower owed nothing at present.
“Wells Fargo’s reporting would not mislead creditors as to Ray’s current financial obligation to Wells Fargo.”
In an insurance benefits dispute, the court found no wrongful delay where the insurer waited for confirmation of the insured’s death from investigating agencies before paying benefits.
“it was not unreasonable for LINA to wait for confirmation of death from the state or agencies that investigated Henning’s disappearance.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Reyes, Simpson denied a defendant's request for a separate trial in a conspiracy case. He found the defendant's general assertions of spillover prejudice insufficient to overcome the presumption against severance in that case.
“Without more evidence of 'substantial,' 'undue' or 'compelling prejudice' to his defense within the appropriate timeframe, these conclusory assertions offered by I. Reyes are insufficient to overcome the presumption against severance in this case.”
In Huffman v. Robey, Simpson denied a prisoner's request for a preliminary injunction requiring medication treatment and a change in prison medical policy. Although related claims survived screening, the plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of success or irreparable injury on the preliminary injunction record.
“Motions seeking to obtain affirmative preliminary injunctive relief must be more closely scrutinized than the already-disfavored motion for preliminary injunction which seeks to maintain the status quo.”
In Blue Spirits Distilling v. Luctor International, Simpson denied a one sentence request for leave to amend included at the end of an opposition brief. The plaintiff had supplied no proposed amended complaint for the court to review; the order left open consideration of a proper motion.
“But it did not tender a proposed amended complaint to the court, so there is nothing for the court to review.”
In a disability appeal, the court treated a new ground for reversal raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation as forfeited.
“Claimant cannot raise a new ground for reversal now. Swain, 379 F. App’x at 517–18. His argument is forfeit.”
Cautions
The judge accepted the government's own correction of the trial record as sufficient basis to dismiss an indictment with prejudice and order a defendant's immediate release, without demanding further briefing once the prosecution acknowledged the problem.
“The Indictment DN 3 and Superseding Indictment DN 25 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Notice of Filing to Correct the Record DN 40. James Hickman III shall be RELEASED FROM CUSTODY FORTHWITH.”
In Bruederle’s jail suit, Simpson held that claims against Lt. Norris other than outrage were untimely under Kentucky’s one-year statute of limitations and dismissed those claims with prejudice.
“all claims but Bruederle’s cause of action for outrage should have been filed by December 5, 2005 and that because Bruederle failed to file against Defendants until September 27, 2006, these claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Kyle Meany’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Count 1 (DN 33) is GRANTED. The final sentence of Count One of the Indictment is hereby STRICKEN and the felony charges against defendant Meany as found in Count One of the Indictment are hereby by DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant Kyle Meany's Motion to Dismiss Count 4 (DN 34) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Joshua Jaynes' Motion to Dismiss Count I (DN 35) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. To the extent Jaynes seeks dismissal of the felony changes in Count One, his Motion (DN 35) is GRANTED but to the extent that he seeks complete dismissal of Count One, his Motion (DN 35) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Joshua Jaynes' Motion to Dismiss Count II (DN 36) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Joshua Jaynes' Motion to Dismiss Count III (DN 37) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (DN 61 and DN 62) are GRANTED. The final sentence of Count One of the Superseding Indictment is hereby STRICKEN and the felony charges against defendants Jaynes and Meany are hereby by DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“The Court hereby GRANTS the Government's motion. The Indictment and Superseding Indictment on file in the above-captioned case are hereby dismissed with prejudice as against both defendants, Joshua Jaynes and Kyle Meany.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ishia Reyes's Motion to Sever (DN 123) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to dismiss, DN 24, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. The Motion is GRANTED as to Counts I, II, III, VII, IX, and X of the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and those Counts are DISMISSED as to all Defendants. a. Counts I, II, III, and IX are dismissed without prejudice. b. Counts VII and X are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Blue Spirits' perfunctory 'Alternative Motion' for leave to amend its Amended Complaint, DN 29-2, is DENIED.”
“Because Defendants have shown that White lacks sufficient proof of elements necessary to her claims and because White has failed to carry her burden of proof in opposition to those Rule 56 arguments, the Court will grant Defendants' summary judgment Motion (DN 29) and enter a judgment in their favor as to all claims by White.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (DN 6) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff A.N.A.'s Motion for Class Certification 70 is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff J.J.N.'s Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Two subclasses, as set forth, are certified for purposes of this litigation.”
“MEMORANDUM OPINON AND ORDER by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III adopting 22 Report and Recommendations and objections are overrruled; certificate of appealability is DENIED; separate judgment will be entered”
“Because the Court finds that Reid has failed to make a prima facie showing that Defendants are amenable to service of process under Kentucky's long-arm statute, she has failed to make a necessary showing for the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants... For these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants' motion by separate order.”
“Stanley's complaint does not state a claim for retaliation under the KCRA that is plausible on its face. Therefore, the Court will grant Haier's motion to dismiss.”
“the motion of the defendants, Green Hills Ventures, LLC, et al., to dismiss (DN 5) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled dockets spanned commercial contract and coal-mine wage-and-hour litigation, employment discrimination and FMLA disputes, insurance and consumer-debt disputes, Social Security appeals, defamation, prisoner civil-rights suits, and federal criminal prosecutions including drug and firearms charges as well as the Breonna Taylor-related civil-rights case.
- Several sampled cases ended in settlement, voluntary dismissal, or reassignment to another judge rather than a contested ruling by this judge, consistent with a broad general civil and criminal 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 8 |
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 Western District of Kentucky, not for Judge Simpson: 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 | 931 | 7.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 121 | 3.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 790 | 8.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 17 | 27.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 931 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 966 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 835 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,130 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,065 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,184 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,111 | 8.6 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 Simpson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Simpson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Simpson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace