Frances Kay Behm
How Judge Behm rules, drawn from 41 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Behm
Frances Kay Behm is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Behm received a commission on December 15, 2022.
Judge Behm's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Behm, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Practice Guidelines ↗
- Notice of Scheduling Conference ↗
- Civil Case Management Order - Phase I ↗
- Civil Case Management Order - Phase II ↗
- Criminal Case Management Order ↗
- Exhibit Form ↗
- Sample Motion to Seal ↗
- Model Scheduling Order ↗
- Notice and Order Setting Scheduling Conference in a Patent Infringement Case ↗
- Timeline of Model Scheduling Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Courtesy copies are similarly required for any non-dispositive motion papers where the brief and its accompanying exhibits exceed twenty pages in total length.
“Courtesy copies are similarly required for any non-dispositive motion papers where the brief and its accompanying exhibits exceed twenty pages in total length.”
Motions
Requests to file an oversized brief must be made by motion, in which the moving party sets forth specific reasons justifying the need for additional pages.
“Requests to file an oversized brief must be made by motion, in which the moving party sets forth specific reasons justifying the need for additional pages.”
Trial
However, no later than one week before the final pretrial conference, each party shall make available for inspection all exhibits which that party will introduce at trial.
“However, no later than one week before the final pretrial conference, each party shall make available for inspection all exhibits which that party will introduce at trial.”
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 8, 2026).
- Procedures for Access, Service, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Procedures for the Filing, Service and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order for Discovery and Inspection and Fixing Motion Cut-Off Date in Criminal Cases ↗
- Pro Se Filings (Revised & Amended) ↗
- Filing a New Civil Case or Civil Initiating Papers Under Seal ↗
How Judge Behm decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
When a plaintiff filed suit in federal court and later sought remand, the court denied remand because the case had never been removed from state court.
“This action originated in federal court and was never filed in state court nor removed to federal court. In that posture, the proper procedure for claims over which the court lacks jurisdiction is dismissal without prejudice (without preclusive effect). See, e.g., Coates v. Kahn, No. 21-10944, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57862, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2022) (explaining why ‘a federal court can[not] remand a case originating in federal court to state court’). Thus the motion is denied”
In Pouncy’s criminal case, Behm denied the indictment dismissal motion because it was filed after the dispositive-motion deadline without a legitimate explanation.
“Pouncy’s motion is untimely, that there is no ‘legitimate explanation for the failure to timely file,’”
Cautions
In the Washtenaw County case, the court dismissed a federal challenge to local immigration-cooperation policies because the complaint alleged no conduct beyond the county’s Tenth Amendment authority. A claim seeking compelled local assistance needs a legal obligation to provide it.
“The United States’ Complaint fails to allege that Washtenaw County has done anything more than exercise its constitutional authority under the Tenth Amendment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“under § 4 of the FAA, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part. ... this order effectively DISMISSES this case with prejudice and requires the parties to submit all remaining disputes to binding arbitration”
“Plaintiff has not demonstrated he is entitled to relief from the court’s judgment and his motion is DENIED. The court’s judgment stands, and Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without prejudice.”
“The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I. Ross is therefore entitled to a total of $265,400 due and payable as principal and interest on the two notes.”
“the court DENIES Defendants’ motion for sanctions.”
“the court ... GRANTS Defendant Bashir’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 57), and DISMISSES the Jane Doe defendant without prejudice.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES Defendants' motion for sanctions.”
“Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, in which case the court will deny without prejudice the currently pending motion to dismiss as moot, or Plaintiff may file a response to Defendants' motion.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Defendants have 21 days from the date of this Order to file an answer to the amended complaint.”
“The court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted to deter future conduct. Plaintiffs' counsel – and not Plaintiffs – are responsible for paying this penalty... Plaintiffs' counsel shall pay that amount directly to defense counsel.”
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Dr. Golani's I-140 petition is REMANDED to USCIS for proper consideration of the record as a whole.”
“For the reasons above, the court GRANTS Defendant AEG's and BFPCC's motions to dismiss as to Counts I and II under Rule 12(b)(1), lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims (Counts III, IV, and V), and so dismisses all claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This is a final order that closes the case.”
“Therefore, the Court GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1). It is therefore ORDERED that: 1. Respondent Raycraft shall provide Morales-Martinez with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) on or before November 13, 2025, or otherwise release him.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed matters filed since Judge Behm's December 2022 commission reflect a broad civil docket that includes prisoner civil rights, insurance and declaratory-judgment disputes, Social Security, employment, contract, negotiable-instrument, consumer, and automobile-franchise cases.
- Her duty assignments also include intellectual-property identification matters, warrant applications, and grand-jury proceedings, which are not treated as merits cases.
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 19 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 19 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 18 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 7 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 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 Eastern District of Michigan, not for Judge Behm: 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 | 2,926 | 8.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 410 | 2.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,246 | 4.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,252 | 15.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 18 | 35.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,926 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,615 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,616 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,541 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,405 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,677 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,237 | 8.6 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 Behm with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Behm, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Behm's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace