Stacey Diane Neumann
How Judge Neumann rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Neumann
Stacey Diane Neumann is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Neumann received a commission on August 22, 2024.
Judge Neumann's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Neumann, 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 Neumann decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Ericson’s reconsideration motion, Neumann applied the Rule 59(e) standard and rejected a renewed argument already considered before judgment.
“A Rule 59(e) motion 'is not the venue to ... permit a party to advance arguments it should have developed prior to judgment ... nor is it the mechanism to regurgitate old arguments previously considered and rejected.'”
Procedural preferences
In Gladu’s multi-count immunity dispute, Neumann analyzed each claim separately and allowed the First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed despite dismissal of other claims.
“Based on the record currently before the Court, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Gladu's First Amendment retaliation claim.”
In Griffin’s civil-rights action, Neumann denied leave to file a surreply because the plaintiff identified no exceptional circumstance for adding another round of briefing.
“Ms. Griffin has not cited, and the Court cannot discern, any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a surreply.”
In Yered’s employment suit, Neumann upheld a discovery order denying access to a minor patient’s medical records because less intrusive sources were available for the disputed claim.
“Where disclosure of private information outweighs potential benefits, the Court must deny a motion to compel.”
Cautions
In Lane’s excessive-force and false-arrest suit, Neumann treated qualified immunity as an alternative summary-judgment ground after finding no constitutional violation.
“Even if Rolerson had arrested Lane without probable cause and used excessive force in doing so, Lane has not shown 'the law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer in' Rolerson's shoes 'would be on notice that his actions would violate the Fourth Amendment.'”
In Ericson’s suppression motion, Neumann addressed the plain-view doctrine document by document, distinguishing items whose significance required reading from those immediately apparent.
“In general, a written document does not fall into the plain view exception if a police officer must read the document to understand its incriminating nature.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court GRANTS the United States of America's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9).”
“Here, Mr. Ericson has not identified any manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence. ... Therefore, his motion to reconsider (ECF No. 129) is DENIED.”
“On September 12, 2025, Defendants Randall Liberty, James Hancox, Myles Reid, and Matthew Magnusson moved for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 281. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 66)”
“and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69).”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss and HEREBY DISMISSES Count Two and the case.”
“Having raised no basis in law for the dismissal of his indictment, Mr. Ericson's motions requesting such relief (ECF Nos. 76, 89, 90, 123) are DENIED.”
“For these reasons, I GRANT Mr. Ericson's motion to suppress the birth and death certificates and the seven ID cards and DENY his motion to suppress the passport and the American Consumer Express Credit Card, the Harold Fedoruk & Associates Business Services Card, and the Courtesy Check Card. ECF Nos. 77, 115, 116.”
“I therefore GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) and dismiss Plaintiff's claims in excess of $16,850.75.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Blodgett's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 45, is GRANTED, and I find that Mr. Blodgett is entitled to property damages in the amount of $16,716.77.”
“Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 3, is DENIED.”
“The Recommended Decision, ECF No. 1239, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED in its entirety. Accordingly, Ms. Greenlaw's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2255, ECF No. 1225, is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the City and Rolerson's motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Neumann's early-tenure docket (Aug 2024 onward) includes civil-rights, employment/contract, mortgage foreclosure, admiralty, immigration, and criminal matters, plus a steady stream of self-represented prisoner civil-rights complaints that are screened and often dismissed at the outset. Magistrate Judges John C. Nivison and Karen Frink Wolf are her most frequent referral magistrates.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
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 Neumann: 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 Neumann with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Neumann, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Neumann's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace