Nathaniel Matheson Gorton
How Judge Gorton rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Gorton received a commission on September 24, 1992. Judge Gorton assumed senior status on May 31, 2025.
Judge Gorton's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gorton, 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.
- Judicial Forum Survey ↗
- Notice Regarding Judge Gorton’s Standing Order On Interim CJA 20 Vouchers In Excess Compensation Cases ↗
- Scheduling Order ↗
Key rules
Sealing
A proposed protective order should confirm that it is subject to Local Rule 7.2.
“In any such order counsel should confirm that it is specifically subject to the provisions of Local Rule 7.2”
Trial
Submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law before trial; they may be supplemented afterward.
“The Court requires counsel to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law before the start of trial; they may be supplemented after the conclusion of trial.”
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 Gorton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Toney v. Guerriero, Gorton granted summary judgment against a procedural due-process claim over lost property because a Massachusetts conversion action provided an adequate remedy, even though he described the claim as apparently deserving of compensation.
“Plaintiff has, both pro se and with the benefit of appointed counsel, brought what on its face appears to be a meritorious action deserving of compensation but because 1) he could have brought a tort claim under Massachusetts law, such as an action for conversion, and 2) a state tort claim is an adequate post-deprivation remedy ... he does not have an actionable Sec. 1983 claim in this case.”
In PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc. v. LabQ Clinical Diagnostics LLC, Gorton allowed the plaintiff to plead breach of contract and unjust enrichment in the alternative at the early pleading stage.
“at this early juncture, plaintiff may plead both breach of contract and unjust enrichment in the alternative.”
Procedural preferences
In Momenta Pharmaceuticals v. Teva, he dismissed withdrawn patent-infringement counts with prejudice at final judgment after the plaintiffs waited until after summary judgment briefing to withdraw them, and declined their proposed qualification about preclusion.
“proceeding to the merits of Teva's summary judgment motion would be futile. Furthermore, plaintiffs have had an ample opportunity to brief this matter.”
In immigration detention after a prolonged period of living freely in the country, he distinguished the governing detention statute from the separate due-process question. Although mandatory detention applied, the petitioner's family and community ties and the absence of a mechanism to challenge custody required a prompt bond hearing under the Mathews balancing test.
“Individuals who have become residents, regardless of their immigration status, ought not be incarcerated and separated from their families without due process of law.”
In a trafficking claim, the court required defendants seeking judgment on the pleadings to establish when the claims against them accrued; a time-bar ruling against other defendants did not resolve that factual question.
“The moving defendants provide no facts or arguments about when plaintiff’s claims against them arose, thereby failing to establish the applicability of the statute of limitations”
Cautions
In St. Germain v. Corsini, he denied a certificate of appealability on a procedurally dismissed habeas petition because the petitioner had not shown the evidence omission was intentional or prejudicial and the argument would revisit an issue decided by the First Circuit.
“to decide this issue would be to re-litigate an issue already heard by the First Circuit, the Court finds that jurists of reason would not debate 'whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right'.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 70) is ALLOWED.”
“plaintiff's motion for summary judgment(Docket No. 48) is DENIED,”
“defendant's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 51) is DENIED as moot and”
“defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Docket No. 57) is ALLOWED.”
“defendant's motion for entry of final judgment (Docket No. 209) is, with respect to defendant's First Counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,790,466, DENIED, but is, in all other respects, ALLOWED.”
“plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on defendants' Chapter 93A, Sec. 3 affirmative defense (Docket No. 367, Part II) is ALLOWED. Otherwise, the cross motions for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 357, 367) are DENIED.”
“the cross motions for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 357, 367) are DENIED.”
“defendant LabQ's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 9) is DENIED.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the certificate of appealability is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant Carmenatty's motion to suppress (Docket No. 96) is DENIED.”
“defendant Alkayisi's motion to suppress (Docket No. 302), defendant Dzabiev's motion to suppress (Docket No. 294), defendant O'Hearn's motion to suppress evidence (Docket No. 295) and defendant O'Hearn's motion to suppress statements (Docket No. 298) are all DENIED, without hearings.”
“the motion of defendant Antunes to dismiss the indictment (Docket No. 157) is DENIED.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, defendant's petition (Docket No. 49) is DISMISSED.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, petitioner's motion for a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.”
“the defendants' motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 47) is DENIED.”
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 3 |
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 District of Massachusetts, not for Judge Gorton: 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 | 2,682 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,095 | 3.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 881 | 7.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 676 | 17.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 30 | 34.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,682 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,439 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,756 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,222 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,582 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,391 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 4,438 | 23 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 Gorton with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gorton, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gorton's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace