Karen Frink Wolf
How Judge Wolf rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wolf
Karen Frink Wolf has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Maine since April 2022. She graduated from the University of New Hampshire and Syracuse University College of Law. Before joining the bench, she was a partner at the Verrill law firm in Portland and practiced litigation for 36 years.
Judge Wolf's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wolf, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
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 Wolf decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Browdy v. Central Maine Power Company, she recommended dismissal of a complaint alleging a utility and regulator conspiracy, concluding that it failed plausibility review and independently warranted dismissal as factually frivolous under the court's inherent authority.
“More fundamentally, the motions to dismiss should be granted under the Court's inherent authority to dismiss frivolous actions alleging fantastic scenarios.”
Procedural preferences
In the cited Maine Civil Rights Act case, Wolf denied bifurcation after resolving a threshold state-law limitations question. The district judge overruled the defendants' objection to her order.
“the Magistrate Judge based her ruling on her legal determination that 14 M.R.S. Sec. 752-C sets aside the otherwise applicable statute of limitations for Plaintiff's claims under the Maine Civil Rights Act ... Defendants' objection (ECF No. 104) to the Magistrate Judge's Order on Motion for Bifurcation and Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 103) is OVERRULED.”
In Conservation Law Foundation v. Cooke Aquaculture, Wolf denied an attorneys’ eyes only restriction after finding the standard confidentiality order protected proprietary information while permitting the plaintiff to use its own personnel in the case.
“The standard order protects Cooke’s proprietary information while allowing CLF to involve necessary non-attorney personnel in the litigation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the Court GRANT the Defendants' motions (ECF Nos. 13, 16), DISMISS Browdy's complaint, and DEEM MOOT all other pending motions.”
“Accordingly, I recommend that the Court DENY Lantos's motion to amend his complaint, GRANT the Commissioner's motion, and DISMISS Lantos's complaint.”
On preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) of an in forma pauperis complaint against the Department of Justice, Wolf recommended sua sponte dismissal for improper venue and sovereign immunity. She also warned that further groundless filings by this self-described serial litigant could lead to filing restrictions.
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the Court GRANT the Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS the Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Cumulative Expert Testimony (ECF No. 44). DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Bar Argument or Evidence that Maine Medical Center Bears Fault (ECF No. 45). GRANTED WITHOUT OBJECTION.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Collateral Source Benefits (ECF No. 46). GRANTED IN PART.”
“Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Lost Household Services (ECF No. 37). DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Undisclosed Expert Opinion of Samantha Colver, D.O. (ECF No. 38). DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Unvested Pension Benefits (ECF No. 39). DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Loss of Consortium (ECF No. 40). GRANTED IN PART.”
“Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Other Malpractice Claims (ECF No. 41). GRANTED WITHOUT OBJECTION.”
“Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Liability Insurance (ECF No. 42). GRANTED WITHOUT OBJECTION.”
“Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude So-Called Reptile Tactics (ECF No. 43). DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Vermont Mutual’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and the deadlines are extended as follows”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons I GRANT the motion in part as to Count I and DENY the motion as to Counts II-VI.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Grover and Acadia’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“Their embedded motion is DENIED because they failed to follow the procedural requirements of Rule 11.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s decision is VACATED and the case REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this decision.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Much of Wolf's docket consists of magistrate-specific miscellaneous matters (search and seizure warrants, electronic-device extraction orders, grand-jury-related applications) rather than civil party litigation; her civil caseload includes a consent Social Security disability-appeal docket and ERISA, foreclosure, and civil-rights cases referred to her for pretrial management.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, not for Judge Wolf: 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 Wolf with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wolf, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wolf's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace