George Levi Russell III
How Judge Russell rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Russell
George Levi Russell, III is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Russell received a commission on May 22, 2012.
Judge Russell's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Russell'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 Russell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Cautions
In Akkus, the proposed class representatives could pursue their own actual damages in the case, while absent members would need separate litigation. The court found this difference defeated typicality and adequacy.
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden as to typicality and adequacy, and the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.”
In Banerjee, Russell held that the insurance administrative complaint was not a removable civil action; the plaintiffs who filed it also lacked authority to remove it to federal court.
“the consumer complaint and the P&C Unit’s decision are not civil causes of action. Further, because 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides for removal only of ‘any civil action,’ the instant action is not removable”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“City of Baltimore's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED.”
“City of Baltimore's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surreply (ECG No. 18) is GRANTED.”
“Young's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No 12) is DENIED.”
“Howe’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED.”
“Doe's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 28) is DENIED.”
“Target's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of JMT.”
“Plaintiff John C. Rosero's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 48) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13), construed as a motion to dismiss, and Motion to Seal (ECF No. 15) are granted. The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice, with the exception of Giddings' state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs' Motions, (ECF Nos. 13, 18), will be granted as to the claims regarding the private building consent rule and carrying near public demonstrations or in locations selling alcohol for onsite-consumption, and the Motions will be denied in all other respects.”
“State Defendants' Cross Motions for Summary Judgment, (ECF Nos. 21, 23), will be granted as to the Kipke Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claims (Counts III and IV of the Kipke Complaint), as well as the claims regarding: State Parks; mass transit facilities; schools and school grounds; museums; stadiums; healthcare facilities; government buildings; amusement parks; racetracks; and casinos. The Cross Motions for Summary Judgment will otherwise be denied.”
“the claims against the Individual Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice”
“the Court will grant Thomarios’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Count III (ECF No. 12).”
“his Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) is DENIED, and his Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“JHHSC's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED.”
“the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“the Court will grant WCI Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) and dismiss Jones's Complaint without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 228.0 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 53.5 days (N = 16).
The reviewed dockets include employment and prisoner civil-rights cases, collateral attacks on criminal convictions, wage litigation, consumer and contract disputes, personal injury, and a False Claims Act matter. The five cases reviewed at the motion-entry level were terminated; the ten-case duration cohort was also closed. This selected mix does not represent the court’s 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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 11 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 14 |
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 Russell: 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 Russell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Russell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Russell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace