Deborah Lynn Boardman
How Judge Boardman rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Boardman
Deborah Lynn Boardman is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Boardman received a commission on June 25, 2021.
Judge Boardman's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Boardman'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).
- Order 2026-05: Redacted Filings in FRCP 5.2(c) Cases ↗
- Order 2026-03: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings ↗
- Order 2025-05: Procedures for the Filing of Sealed Documents ↗
- Amended Order 2021-13: Removal Actions ↗
- Amended Order 2022-04: Social Security Cases ↗
- Second Amended Order 2021-02: Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Order 2020-01: Discovery in Criminal Cases ↗
- Order 2018-07: Amicus Briefs ↗
- Order 2018-08: Service of Rule 68 Offers of Judgment ↗
- Second Amended Order 2025-01: Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus—Alien Detainee ↗
- Order 2024-01: Deficiency Notices ↗
How Judge Boardman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Emergent BioSolutions securities litigation, Boardman allowed some alleged misstatements to proceed under the PSLRA's pleading standard while dismissing others. The control-person claim survived only to the extent the underlying securities claim did.
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.”
Procedural preferences
In Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, Boardman dismissed the plaintiff's First Amendment claims without prejudice but allowed her Title VII claim against the Board to proceed.
“The Board's motion to dismiss Polk's complaint is granted in part and denied in part. Polk's First Amendment claims are dismissed without prejudice. Her Title VII claim survives.”
When reviewing an agency decision, she declined to dismiss an adoption petition challenge without briefing tied to the full administrative record; the agency had not supported its arguments with record citations.
“The Court will decide the merits of Quarcoo’s claims after the parties have fully briefed summary judgment motions.”
Cautions
In Snyder v. Watts, Boardman dismissed a detainee's civil-rights claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. She also declined to reach the defendants' undeveloped qualified-immunity argument.
“the defendants' motion, construed as a motion to dismiss, is granted. Snyder's claims are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies”
In Albert v. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Boardman dismissed the pharmacy residents’ Sherman Act claims without prejudice because the complaint did not plausibly allege an agreement among defendants. She allowed an amended complaint.
“They have not alleged an agreement among the defendants—a pleading requirement for both Sherman Act claims—and for that reason alone, Counts I and II must be dismissed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The motion to dismiss is granted, and Lee's complaint is dismissed.”
“Lee's request for leave to amend is denied.”
“Because the Court dismisses Lee's complaint, his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his request for counsel is denied as moot.”
“The Board's motion to dismiss Polk's complaint is granted in part and denied in part. Polk's First Amendment claims are dismissed without prejudice. Her Title VII claim survives.”
“Polk is not entitled to a preliminary injunction on her Title VII claim. Her motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.”
“the defendants' motion, construed as a motion to dismiss, is granted. Snyder's claims are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.”
“To the extent Mr. Bourne's opposition, ECF 18, and surreply, ECF 22, may be construed as motions to strike the defendants' motion to dismiss and opposition, the motions are denied because the filings are not pleadings”
“the Court denies the defendants' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, or sanctions. Mr. Bourne is self-represented, and the defendants have not shown that he has 'abuse[d] the judicial process'”
“the Court dismisses Goodman's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denies a certificate of appealability.”
“Doe's emergency motion for injunctive and structural relief, ECF 5, IS DENIED AS MOOT”
“plaintiff's motion to proceed under pseudonym, ECF 4, IS GRANTED”
Suit transferred from the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) against six current or former Maryland state-court judges, a former U.S. District Judge, and a Fourth Circuit judge. The court dismissed it sua sponte without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, as barred by absolute judicial immunity under Stump v. Sparkman. The disposition did not resolve a party motion.
“PrimeCare’s motion to dismiss is granted.”
“Craig and Evitts’s dispositive motion, treated in part as a motion to dismiss and in part as a motion for summary judgment, is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Beddow, Reynolds, and White’s dispositive motion, treated in part as a motion to dismiss and in part as a motion for summary judgment, is granted in part and denied in part.”
“The adversary process has not been halted here. The motion for default judgment is denied.”
“The motion for leave to amend is denied as moot.”
“The motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, construed as motions to dismiss, are granted. Long’s claims against all defendants are dismissed without prejudice.”
“MCM’s motion to compel arbitration, ECF 13, is GRANTED;”
“The medical defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 162 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 183 days (N = 11).
The sampled matters include consumer credit, copyright, immigration mandamus, employment, prisoner and other civil rights, insurance, contract, remand, and constitutional or administrative challenges. The December 2023 filing cohort supplies the case-duration summary; motions come from additional cases filed in 2021–2025.
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 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 19 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 10 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Maryland, not for Judge Boardman: 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 | 3,191 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 151 | 5.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,564 | 5.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 457 | 13.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 19 | 33.9 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,191 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,119 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,370 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,053 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,629 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,469 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,709 | 7.9 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 Boardman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Boardman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Boardman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace