William Glover Young
How Judge Young rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Young
William G. Young is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Young received a commission on April 4, 1985. Judge Young assumed senior status on July 1, 2021.
Judge Young's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Young, 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.
Key rules
Filing
An applicant for electronic filing privileges must certify that they understand and can perform the filing requirements.
“A person who applies for the privilege of filing documents electronically must certify that such person understands the requirements of such filing and is capable of performing them.”
Conferences
A detailed written case-management proposal is not required from a pro se litigant.
“With pro se litigants I do not require a detailed written case management proposal.”
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 Young decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, Young addressed the merits before unresolved prudential-standing questions. He allowed First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act theories to proceed while dismissing a Fifth Amendment vagueness count.
“As long as the constitutional standing requirements are satisfied, the court may evaluate the case's merits before resolving thorny prudential standing questions, and so this Court does here.”
In SEC v. Sharp, he denied the SEC’s partial summary judgment motion because it bore the trial burden and disputed authenticity and reliability of trading records left material issues for the jury.
“When the moving party also bears the burden at trial, as is the case here, its burden of proof includes 'producing incontrovertible prima facie evidence of its claims.' ... The SEC's motion, ECF No. 266, is therefore denied in its entirety.”
In Hermida v. Archstone Reading, he denied the landlord summary judgment and granted the nonmoving tenants judgment on Chapter 93A liability after finding an amenity-use fee exceeded charges allowed by Massachusetts security-deposit law.
“this Court DENIES Archstone Reading's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 153, in its entirety, and instead GRANTS summary judgment on liability under Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 93A, section 2 for the non-moving party, the Hermidas.”
Procedural preferences
In Winfield v. Town of Andover, Young called the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard ill defined and a poor guide to motions to dismiss. He assessed the proposed amended claims against the undisputed factual allegations, allowing one excessive-force claim and rejecting the others.
“the plausibility standard continues to be remarkably ill defined and this Court considers it a poor guide to determining motions to dismiss.”
Cautions
In Desmesmin v. City of Boston, he dismissed employment claims as untimely because the plaintiff could not reasonably continue relying on a proposed class case after class certification was denied in 2014 and waited years before asserting his own claims.
“Desmesmin had no objectively reasonable justification to rely upon the Smith plaintiffs to vindicate his rights after the motion for class certification was denied in 2014 ... 'diligent' he was not.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court ALLOWS Boston's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7, and the complaint is DISMISSED as untimely.”
“Ms. Winfield may proceed with her claim for excessive force against Keefe and Cooper. In all other respects, the motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied as futile and the case is dismissed upon the remaining claims against the remaining defendants, with the exception of Richdale.”
“this Court on October 18, 2016, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 41. Summary judgment is GRANTED as to the claims of negligent design and testing; it is DENIED as to the adequacy of Pradaxa's label and proximate cause.”
“this Court DENIES Archstone Reading's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 153, in its entirety, and instead GRANTS summary judgment on liability under Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 93A, section 2 for the non-moving party, the Hermidas.”
“This aspect of the case, in the context of the evidence undergirding it, is simply not suitable for summary judgment. The SEC's motion, ECF No. 266, is therefore denied in its entirety.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED in part as to count three and DENIED in part as to counts one, two, and four.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court denied the motion for summary judgment on September 19, 2012”
In a pro se prisoner civil-rights and declaratory action against the Massachusetts Governor, Young dismissed the complaint sua sponte on Section 1915A screening for failure to state a claim, with 35 days to file a 25-page amended complaint. He also denied motions to waive Rule 8, obtain early discovery and service, hold oral argument, grant permanent injunctive relief, vacate Gaskins v. Clarke, and take judicial notice. Quote: 'Following screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the complaint is dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.'
In a pro se action brought by a minor through a guardian, a 79-page, 48-count complaint named a former landlord, property managers, attorneys, and firms. On sua sponte screening, Young denied the pending motions, found misjoinder under Rule 20(a)(2), and granted leave to amend, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal. Quote: 'In accordance with the foregoing, the pending motions are denied without prejudice.'
“Accordingly, ECF No. 29 is ALLOWED and the default judgment entered against Banerjee is VACATED.”
“The motions to dismiss count I, ECF No. 14, are DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 3, is DENIED on all counts.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 99 days (N = 7).
- Young's docket has included major antitrust, constitutional, administrative-law, securities, product-liability, employment, insurance, and post-conviction matters.
- The newest reviewed case involved a former pharmacy student's discrimination and dismissal claims and proceeded from preliminary-injunction practice to a jury-waived trial within months.
- These examples illustrate range, not the composition of his full caseload.
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 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Young: 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 Young with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Young, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Young's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace