Shalina Deborah Kumar
How Judge Kumar rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kumar
Shalina Deborah Kumar is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Kumar received a commission on December 21, 2021.
Judge Kumar's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kumar, 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 ↗
- Exhibit Form ↗
- Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan Template ↗
- Notice of Scheduling Conference ↗
- Civil Scheduling Order- Phase I ↗
- Criminal Case Scheduling Order ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
All papers submitted electronically to chambers must be in the current version of Word.
“All papers submitted electronically to chambers must be in the current version of Word.”
Filing
Parties must file a Proposed Order along with any Stipulation.
“Parties must file a Proposed Order along with any Stipulation.”
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 Kumar decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mary Ann B.’s Social Security appeal, Kumar overruled the claimant’s objection as a repeat of earlier briefing, adopted the recommendation and affirmed the denial of benefits.
“GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) ... AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s decision that plaintiff is not disabled under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
In Matsey v. City of Troy, Kumar granted summary judgment on an excessive-force claim after finding that body-camera evidence did not support the plaintiff’s account of the arrest.
“body camera do not support Matsey’s allegations against the SIU officers,”
Procedural preferences
In Fetterman v. Peek, Kumar adopted an unopposed magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the defendants' summary-judgment motion in a prisoner civil-rights case.
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is GRANTED.”
In a dispute over a video exhibit, the court treated a discovery objection as requiring the opposing party to move to compel before asserting that nonproduction violated discovery rules.
“Once defendants objected to plaintiffs’ request to produce this video, it was incumbent upon plaintiffs to challenge that objection with a motion to compel if it wanted it produced.”
Cautions
In LaMie v. Morgan, Kumar dismissed federal claims against a state judge with prejudice after adopting a recommendation that judicial immunity barred them. She dismissed the remaining state claims without prejudice.
“GRANTS Judge Morgan and the County’s motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 6). LaMie’s federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
In Trapp v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, Kumar declined to vacate an arbitration award because the challenger did not show that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law or exceeded her authority. She confirmed the award on the opposing party’s motion.
“Trapp has not met the exceptionally heavy burden of establishing grounds for vacating the arbitrator’s award.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.”
“GRANTS Judge Morgan and the County’s motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 6). LaMie’s federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“DENIES plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11)”
“GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) ... AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s decision that plaintiff is not disabled under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 47) ... and GRANTS Dr. Oliver’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37). Perkins’ case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“the Court GRANTS the Ennis Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 63)”
“GRANTS the State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 65)”
“and DENIES Metcalf’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 60). Metcalf’s complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety.”
“his habeas petition will be granted, and Respondents will be directed to provide Gimenez Gonzalez with a bond hearing”
“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Burse’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court GRANTS default judgment against DPS on Burse’s retaliation claims, and, at trial, DPS is precluded from relying on any evidence or explanations for its actions that should have been provided in response to discovery requests but were not.”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 24) and DENIES Whitlow’s motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 16).”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 19) and DENIES Lopez’s motions (ECF Nos. 14, 16, 17).”
“Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer the petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 25) and Stratz’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, all scheduled hearings are CANCELLED, and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed civil matters include prisoner civil-rights and habeas cases, employment and disability claims, Social Security appeals, automotive product-liability and consumer-fraud disputes, insurance, securities, trademark, trade-secret, and consumer-credit cases.
- Warrant and miscellaneous duty matters are excluded from the merits mix.
- This is a descriptive sample, not a complete caseload count.
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 | 5 |
| 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 | 15 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 5 | 15 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 13 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 19 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 17 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 8 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 17 | 1 |
| Mar 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 Eastern District of Michigan, not for Judge Kumar: 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 Kumar with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kumar, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kumar's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace