John C. Nivison
How Judge Nivison rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Nivison
John C. Nivison has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Maine since January 2014. Before joining the federal bench, he was a judge of the Maine District Court, where he served as chief judge, and the Maine Superior Court. He graduated from Colby College and the University of Maine School of Law.
Judge Nivison's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Nivison'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).
How Judge Nivison decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Recommends dismissing a Defend Trade Secrets Act claim premised on threatened rather than actual misappropriation, declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 41) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.”
Procedural preferences
On a motion to dismiss, sifts the claims, dismissing most while allowing a single well-pleaded Section 1983 theory to proceed.
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 31) is hereby ACCEPTED. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is DENIED IN PART as to the Plaintiffs' claim under 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983 arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to hold a hearing on whether their home constituted a 'dangerous building' under Maine law. The motion is otherwise GRANTED IN PART, and all of the Plaintiffs' other claims are DISMISSED.”
Cautions
On removal, recommends granting a state defendant's motion to dismiss and denying the plaintiff's motion to remand.
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 11) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED. The Maine Department of Corrections' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 41) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 31) is hereby ACCEPTED. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is DENIED IN PART as to the Plaintiffs' claim under 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983 arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to hold a hearing on whether their home constituted a 'dangerous building' under Maine law. The motion is otherwise GRANTED IN PART, and all of the Plaintiffs' other claims are DISMISSED.”
“In light of this disposition, the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT, and the prior Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 9) is REJECTED AS MOOT.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 11) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED. The Maine Department of Corrections' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED.”
“Nobrega's Objection to Removal (ECF No. 5) and Motion to Remand (ECF No. 7) are DENIED.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 15) is hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED (ECF No. 12). This case is, accordingly, DISMISSED.”
On preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) of a pro se complaint alleging that a county sheriff's office and various officials conspired against the plaintiff, Nivison's Recommended Decision and Supplemental Recommended Decision called for sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a plausible claim. The district judge adopted the recommendations and imposed a pre-filing injunction because of the plaintiff's extensive history of similar implausible suits in the district.
“Accordingly, the Court denies Darling’s motion to compel arbitration.”
“grants the motion and awards an attorney fee under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), in the amount of $112,992 (or twenty-five percent of past-due benefits, whichever is less) to Plaintiff’s counsel.”
“grants in part Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction as follows: 3 Unless and until this Court or the First Circuit stays, vacates, or alters this Court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, the parties shall not participate in the arbitration proceeding that is the subject of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Sample of dockets naming John C.
- Nivison as assigned or referral judge, drawn from several filing-year windows.
- Mix observed: personal-injury/insurance diversity suits, ERISA benefit disputes, employment discrimination, civil-rights removal cases, grand-jury/prisoner-petition miscellaneous matters, and a substantial Social Security disability-appeal cohort.
- In the 2019-2022 window he mostly manages pretrial scheduling and discovery while a district judge (Woodcock or Levy) decides the dispositive motions; in the 2014-2019 and 2017-2021 windows, by contrast, a sizeable share of his civil docket, Social Security appeals and several general civil suits, was consented to his full jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), so he entered the final dispositive rulings himself.
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 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 United States District Court for the District of Maine, not for Judge Nivison: 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 | 464 | 6.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 149 | 4.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 290 | 6.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 22 | 20 months |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 464 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 409 | 8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 388 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 397 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 459 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 390 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 506 | 7.8 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 Nivison with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Nivison, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Nivison's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace