Kenneth P. Neiman
How Judge Neiman rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Neiman no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Neiman
Kenneth P. Neiman served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Massachusetts from January 5, 1995, until his retirement on January 5, 2015. He has served on recall since January 6, 2015, concentrating on mediation. He earned degrees from Tufts University and Harvard Law School.
How Judge Neiman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Koss v. Palmer Water Department, he required production of most internal-investigation materials because the employer's affirmative defense placed the investigation at issue, while preserving narrow legal-advice redactions.
“[b]y raising the Faragher-Ellerth defense . . . Defendants deliberately placed the internal investigation of Plaintiff’s complaints at issue in this lawsuit”
For habeas equitable tolling, he requires both an extraordinary circumstance beyond the petitioner's control and diligent pursuit of rights; ordinary pro se difficulty is insufficient.
“a habeas petitioner seeking to invoke equitable tolling must demonstrate that (1) ‘extraordinary circumstance’ prevented him from filing within the statutory deadline and that (2) he has pursued his rights diligently.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court recommends, first, that the Municipal Defendants’ and Darcangelo and Morey’s motions to dismiss be ALLOWED”
“second, that Coury’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be ALLOWED.”
“The court obviously does not agree and recommends that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be ALLOWED.”
“For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.”
“Defendant Department of State Police’s motion to dismiss is ALLOWED as to Counts I and V, as well as to Count III, to the extent that count includes claims against the Department of State Police under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and Mass. G. L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I. The Department of State Police’s motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED as to Count IV, and as well to Count III, to the extent that count includes claims under Mass. G. L. c. 258.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is ALLOWED.”
“For the reasons stated, the court recommends that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be ALLOWED.”
“For the reasons stated, the court recommends that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be ALLOWED.”
“Defendants’ motion is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part as described above.”
“Defendants City of Holyoke, Lieutenant David Pratt, Detective Brian Duke and Detective Anthony Brach’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Counts I, II (as to Duke and Brach only), III, IV, and VI through IX but DENIED as to Counts II and V, both in regard to Pratt only.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 174 days (N = 15).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 4 days (N = 14).
The fifteen terminated consent matters included civil-rights, employee-benefits, labor, administrative-review, insurance, Social Security, copyright, environmental, and personal-injury disputes.
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 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Neiman no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.