Linda Vivienne Parker
How Judge Parker rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Parker
Linda Vivienne Parker is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Parker received a commission on March 17, 2014.
Judge Parker's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Parker, 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 ↗
- Criminal Trial Notice and Scheduling Order ↗
- Phase I Scheduling Order.pdf ↗
- Phase II Scheduling Order.pdf ↗
- ESI Order Checklist ↗
- Settlement Conference Notice ↗
- Stipulated Request for Case Evaluation ↗
Key rules
Filing
The Court does not require courtesy copies.
“The Court does not require courtesy copies.”
Filing
Pleas If the parties intend for the case to be resolved by a plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, they must submit a signed copy of the written plea agreement to chambers at least two business days before the plea hearing date.
“Pleas If the parties intend for the case to be resolved by a plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, they must submit a signed copy of the written plea agreement to chambers at least two business days before the plea hearing date.”
Motions
Motions for preliminary injunction may not be filed until the opposing party is served with the summons and complaint and will be stricken or denied without prejudice if prematurely filed.
“Motions for preliminary injunction may not be filed until the opposing party is served with the summons and complaint and will be stricken or denied without prejudice if prematurely filed.”
Conferences
No later than four (4) business days prior to the scheduling conference , the parties must submit a Rule 26(f) plan as described in the Notice.
“No later than four (4) business days prior to the scheduling conference , the parties must submit a Rule 26(f) plan as described in the Notice.”
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 Parker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hunt’s prisoner civil rights case, Parker allowed more time to respond to a motion after his recent filings showed an updated address, while reminding him to notify the court formally of address changes.
“the Court finds good cause not to dismiss the case at this time and extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file a response sixty (60) days from the entry of this Order.”
Procedural preferences
Objections to an R&R must be specific and labeled; vague, general, or recycled objections are treated as a complete failure to object (the same standard applied across the mied bench).
“The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.”
In the Jane Does v. Eastern Michigan University case, Parker denied pending dispositive motions as moot after a consolidated amended complaint superseded the pleading those motions addressed.
“the Complaint to which the pending dispositive motions are directed has been superseded and the motions are moot.”
Cautions
In Joyner v. Hendon, Parker dismissed the counseled plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice under Rule 41(b) after they ignored motions and a show-cause order; she found that the relevant factors favored dismissal for failure to prosecute.
“Taken together, the relevant factors support dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice for failure to prosecute.”
In a discovery extension dispute, she refused to reopen discovery when the plaintiffs had not pursued it diligently during the existing window, while allowing a short extension to respond to summary judgment.
“Plaintiffs were well aware of the discovery they needed but failed to diligently pursue during the lengthy discovery window afforded.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 107) is GRANTED IN PART as to Defendants’ counterclaim of fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and DENIED IN PART as to the claims of tortious interference with a business relationship, tortious interference with an economic expectancy, and breach of contract”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 110) is DENIED AS MOOT”
“the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed by Robert Heighes, Daniel Karrick, and Melody Werner (ECF No. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents and Eastern Michigan University Police Department (ECF No. 29) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 13, 15, and 17) are DENIED AS MOOT.”
Pro se prisoner 1983 case. Magistrate Judge Stafford recommended dismissing for failure to prosecute (undeliverable mail / no address update). Parker declined to adopt the R&R: 'the Court finds good cause not to dismiss the case at this time and extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file a response.' The order granted a second 60-day extension and did not decide the defendants' pending summary-judgment motion. It illustrates her latitude toward pro se litigants who have shown some diligence.
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Defendant’s Answers and/or Objections to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (ECF No. 29) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION (ECF NO. 22)”
“DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 22)”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as untimely.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment (ECF No. 17) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion to drop/amend is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, IT IS ORDERED that within seven (7) days ... Plaintiff SHALL FILE an amended complaint naming both TDCC and Dow Silicones as Defendants”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Fifteen terminated civil matters filed in January and February 2020 reflect a broad docket that includes employment, prisoner and other civil-rights claims, patent, employee-benefits, insurance, motor-vehicle injury, wrongful-death, commercial-contract, and Social Security cases. Grand-jury and search-warrant matters are outside this civil-case summary.
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 | 23 |
| 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 | 21 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 23 | 21 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 14 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 14 |
| Sep 2024 | 9 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 13 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 18 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 14 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 20 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 18 |
| Sep 2021 | 24 | 16 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 12 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 9 |
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 Parker: 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 Parker with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Parker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Parker's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace