Paula Xinis
How Judge Xinis rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Xinis
Paula Xinis is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Xinis received a commission on May 18, 2016.
Judge Xinis's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Xinis'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 Xinis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Conditional certification can be denied even at the notice stage when a developed record shows that job duties vary enough to require individualized inquiries. A uniform title and pay structure did not overcome substantial store-to-store differences in the reviewed FLSA case.
“the record as a whole underscores that Store Managers actual duties vary significantly from store to store, and division to division.”
A removing party that persists after clear jurisdictional defects are identified risks paying the opponent's remand expenses. In the reviewed case, the deficient notice and refusal to withdraw made the removal objectively unreasonable.
“From this, the Court concludes Loeffler’s removal efforts were objectively unreasonable, and an award of fees and costs is entirely proper.”
Procedural preferences
In Doe v. Montgomery County Board of Education, Xinis criticized the defendants' overlength brief as repetitive and undisciplined, saying an edit could have brought it within the normal page limit. She allowed the plaintiff a surreply to address new arguments and expert opinions raised in reply.
“the Board’s response on behalf of Defendant Bowers and Brunson is repetitive and undisciplined; it could have easily fallen within the normal page limit had it been given a necessary edit.”
In a criminal case pending appeal, she separated the requested forms of relief and allowed a limited stay for one property while denying bail and broader forfeiture and restitution stays.
“Defendant Nader Pourhassan’s Motion to Continue Bail and Stay Forfeiture and Restitution (ECF No. 399) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Cautions
Deliberate indifference requires more than negligence, imperfect care, or a protocol violation. A brief treatment delay did not become a constitutional violation where the provider promptly referred the patient and care followed the next morning.
“the brief delay in antibiotic treatment, while not ideal, simply does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference.”
Title VII retaliation requires a complaint that communicates opposition to unlawful discrimination. General workplace grievances or claims of unfair treatment do not qualify without that discrimination link.
“But ‘[g]eneral complaints of unfair treatment’ alone do not amount to protected activity.”
In a proposed prerecorded-call class, the court denied certification because consent depended on individual communications with each claimant and could not be resolved through the same proof for the whole class.
“Therefore, common questions do not predominate.”
A declaratory trademark dispute may be dismissed without prejudice when the alleged infringement controversy is not concrete and immediate, even after the defendant’s cease-and-desist correspondence.
“Thus, the Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant CACI International, Inc. (ECF No. 3) BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED”
“Defendants' Motion, construed as one for summary judgment, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs have failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating good grounds to grant reconsideration. The motion is therefore DENIED.”
“Defendant ADT's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff BELINDA C. WATSON's Complaint, ECF No. 2, is DISMISSED”
“Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment is also granted in part and denied in part.”
“the Court dismisses the claims against Defendants Warden Ronald Weber and the Commissioner of Correction, grants summary judgment in Officer Vincent Lark's favor, and denies Moore's motion for summary judgment.”
“denies Moore's motion for summary judgment.”
“Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 44) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Hawk's motion for summary judgment.”
“For the foregoing reasons, TJX's motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“For the following reasons, the motions are GRANTED.”
“Because Jefferson cannot cure the legal infirmities of the claims, the Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice.”
“Motion for Remand (ECF No. 7), filed by Plaintiff Gregory H. Sachs ... BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED”
“Because the claims raised in this Petition is moot, the Petition is dismissed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 261.5 days (N = 12).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 5.5 days (N = 4).
- The reviewed 2020-2023 filings show a broad civil mix, including employment, copyright, construction and contract, employee-benefits, immigration mandamus, prisoner habeas, and subpoena-enforcement matters.
- Xinis sits in the Southern Division at Greenbelt.
- Her later docket includes prominent immigration and separation-of-powers litigation against the federal government, including Abrego Garcia v. Noem.
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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 11 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 13 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 7 |
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 Xinis: 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 Xinis with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Xinis, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Xinis's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace