John Wheadon deGravelles
How Judge deGravelles rules, drawn from 51 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge deGravelles
John Wheadon deGravelles is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge deGravelles received a commission on July 23, 2014.
Judge deGravelles's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge deGravelles, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Chambers instructions ↗
- Instructions for Filing Motions in Limine ↗
- Exhibits To and Exhibit Lists For Pleadings ↗
- Uniform Pretrial Order Notice ↗
Key rules
Filing
File a separate exhibit list attachment with a pleading that includes exhibits.
“that party must file in CM/ECF as a separate attachment to that Pleading an Exhibit List that provides (a) the caption, (b) a descriptive title, (c) a list of exhibit numbers or letters, and (d) corresponding descriptions for each exhibit.”
Filing
File exhibits separately as a general rule and match each docket description to the exhibit list.
“As a general rule, each exhibit should be filed separately; the parties should not file in globo exhibits.”
Motions
Before filing a civil or criminal motion in limine, confer with the opponent and certify any unresolved issue in the motion.
“before any party in either a civil or criminal case files any motion in limine, the moving party shall confer with the opposing party (or any party having an interest to oppose) in a good faith effort to resolve the issue(s) amicably. If the parties cannot resolve the issue(s) amicably, the filing party must include with his motion a certificate stating that he conferred in a good faith effort to resolve the issue(s) amicably and that he was unable to reach an agreement.”
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 deGravelles decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an as-applied First Amendment challenge to professional-title restrictions, he focused on whether the challenged wording was accurate rather than inherently misleading and tailored preliminary relief to the speakers' actual licenses, training, and ethical limits.
“Given the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the argument that Plaintiffs’ accurate use of terms like ‘psychology,’ ‘psychological,’ and ‘psychologist’ is not inherently misleading.”
In Lewis, the court treated federal regulators’ decisions about wetlands jurisdiction as policy decisions protected by the discretionary function exception and dismissed the remaining tort claims for lack of jurisdiction.
“The Court finds that the Corps’ actions ‘are of the nature and quality that Congress intended to shield from tort liability,’”
Procedural preferences
In a derivative business dispute, he denied a jurisdictional dismissal motion because jurisdiction was intertwined with the merits and factual disputes required further discovery.
“At a minimum, the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is so bound up with the merits of Plaintiff’s CFAA claim that application of the Rule 12(b)(1) standard would be improper.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 183) be denied and that the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Linda Ottesen (R. Doc. 154) be granted, dismissing Plaintiff's claims asserted against Defendant Ottesen, with prejudice, and that this action be dismissed.”
“the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Linda Ottesen (R. Doc. 154) be granted, dismissing Plaintiff's claims asserted against Defendant Ottesen, with prejudice, and that this action be dismissed.”
“This matter is before the court on Defendant Anthony Aguillard's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50). The motion is not opposed. The Court has carefully reviewed the motion and attached memorandum and finds it to be meritorious. For reasons articulated in Defendants' motion and memorandum, the motion is granted and Plaintiff's claim against Anthony Aguillard is dismissed with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.26) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims against Defendants, Schneider National Carriers, Inc. and Old Republic Insurance Company, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, at Plaintiff's cost.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) is DENIED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff's appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 92) is GRANTED. The parties conceded that Plaintiffs were each able to show a prima facie case of discrimination, but Defendant presented a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for not promoting each of the Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs were each unable to carry their summary judgment burden to show pretext. ... As a result, Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is granted, in part dismissing the plaintiff's claims for violations of prison rules and compensatory damages. The Court declines the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in connection with Plaintiff's potential state law claims.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 78) is GRANTED, in part, and that the plaintiff's claims against defendant Arnold are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other regards, the Motion (Doc. 78) is DENIED and that this matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings herein.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is granted, dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 61) is granted, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against defendant Victor J. Woods, Jr. with prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 37) is GRANTED, dismissing this action as to Independent Specialty Insurance and Lloyd’s, and furthermore that the entire consolidated action is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) and 2(b)(6) (Doc. 16, 17) are GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims and that those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, and Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 19) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and that Plaintiff’s federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 44 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 55 |
| 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 United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, not for Judge deGravelles: 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 | 1,130 | 13.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 185 | 14.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 924 | 13.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 15 | 25.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 6 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,130 | 13.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,251 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 801 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 732 | 14.9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 843 | 18.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,041 | 24 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,007 | 13.3 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 deGravelles with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge deGravelles, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge deGravelles's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace