Lydia Kay Griggsby

United States District Court for the District of Maryland district Appointed by Joe Biden (Democratic) 18 signed orders read

How Judge Griggsby decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Procedural preferences

She enforces personal-jurisdiction limits: allowing an employee to work remotely from Maryland and providing equipment is not purposeful availment, so an out-of-state employer is not subject to specific jurisdiction there.

“GRANTS the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (ECF No. 21) and (2) DISMISSES the complaint”

Cautions

She strictly enforces PLRA administrative exhaustion, dismissing a prisoner's conditions-of-confinement claims where the inmate filed one grievance and never appealed it (after confirming the procedural defects were not caused by prison-official inaction).

“Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, is GRANTED; The complaint is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies”

In suits seeking to compel USCIS to adjudicate a stalled asylum application she dismisses for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding Congress created no enforceable right to adjudication within a set time and the agency's pace is committed to its discretion under 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(1).

“GRANTS the Defendants' motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) and (2) DISMISSES the complaint”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Knott v. McDonald's Restaurants of Maryland, Inc.
8:21-cv-00592 · 2021-10-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANTS-in-PART and DENIES-in-PART defendant's partial motion to dismiss”

Galvin v. Farren
1:21-cv-01421 · 2022-09-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, is GRANTED; The complaint is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies”

Robinson v. Baltimore County, Maryland
1:21-cv-02997 · 2022-08-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS the County's motion to dismiss; and DISMISSES Counts I, II and VI of the amended complaint against the County”

Hippocratic Growth Maryland Processing, LLC v. Pesce
1:22-cv-00090 · 2022-10-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“DENIES Mr. Pesce's motion to dismiss, or, alternatively, for summary judgment (ECF No. 28)”

Goddard v. Thomas Jefferson University
8:24-cv-01830 · 2025-07-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“GRANTS the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (ECF No. 21) and (2) DISMISSES the complaint”

Brunenkant v. Suburban Hospital Healthcare System, Inc.
8:20-cv-00150 · 2025-04-14
Motion for certification (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court DENIES the Plaintiff's motion for certification of judgment (ECF No. 129)”

O'Reilly v. Del Toro, Secretary of the Navy
8:20-cv-00490 · 2022-08-25
Summary judgment (defendant (Secretary of the Navy)) Granted

“the Court: (1) GRANTS the Secretary's motion for summary judgment and (2) DISMISSES the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.”

Scientific Specialties Service, Inc. v. Grebow
1:20-cv-01967 · 2022-03-16
Summary judgment (defendant/counter-plaintiff (Grebow)) Granted in part

“the Court: (1) GRANTS-in-PART and DENIES-in-PART Grebow's motion for summary judgment; (2) DENIES Scientific's motion to strike; and (3) DISMISSES the complaint and counter-complaint.”

Motions to strike (plaintiff (Scientific Specialties Service)) Denied

“the Court: ... (2) DENIES Scientific's motion to strike”

United States v. Marilyn J. Mosby
1:22-cr-00007 · 2022-04-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant (Marilyn J. Mosby)) Denied

“the Court: ... (2) DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss”

Motion to disqualify (defendant (Marilyn J. Mosby)) Denied

“the Court: ... (3) DENIES Defendant's motion to disqualify”

Motion for bill of particulars (defendant (Marilyn J. Mosby)) Denied

“the Court: (1) DENIES Defendant's motion for a bill of particulars without prejudice”

United States v. James William Wilson, Jr. and Maureen Ann Wilson
1:21-cr-00360 · 2023-04-13
Motions to dismiss (defendants (James and Maureen Wilson)) Denied

“the Court DENIES the Defense's motions to dismiss Counts 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Indictment.”

Motion to suppress (defendant (James Wilson)) Denied

“the Court DENIES the Defense's motion to suppress email evidence. ... the Court also DENIES the Defense's motion to suppress cell phone evidence.”

Motion for severance (defendants (James and Maureen Wilson)) Denied

“the Court DENIES the Defense's motion to sever WITHOUT PREJUDICE, to permit the Defense to addresses these concerns.”

Motion for bill of particulars (defendant (James Wilson)) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS the Defense's motion for a bill of particulars as to Count 1 regarding: (1) The specific life insurance policies at issue in Count 1; and (2) The number of, and identities of, investors who were allegedly defrauded by the Wilsons”

Motion to suppress (defendant (James Wilson)) Moot / procedural

“the Court HOLDS-IN-ABEYENCE Defendant James Wilson's motion to suppress statements (ECF No. 58)”

Beck v. National Security Agency
1:21-cv-03249 · 2023-10-16
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“GRANTS NSA's motion for summary judgment; and (2) DISMISSES the complaint”

Harrison v. Austin (Secretary of Defense)
8:24-cv-01075 · 2025-05-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANTS-in-PART the Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15); and (2) TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 371 days (N = 8).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 213 days (N = 11).

A sample of cases filed from July 2021 through June 2023 includes employment disputes, prisoner civil-rights claims, personal-injury and medical-malpractice actions, immigration mandamus cases, environmental litigation, copyright claims, landlord disputes, and federal criminal matters, including United States v. Mosby.

Put Judge Griggsby's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Griggsby actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Griggsby's own signed orders and cites them.