Stephen Joseph Murphy III
How Judge Murphy rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Murphy
Stephen Joseph Murphy, III is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Murphy received a commission on August 18, 2008.
Judge Murphy's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Murphy, 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.
Key rules
Discovery
Extensions should be requested no later than one week before the close of discovery.
“Extensions should be requested no later than one week before the close of discovery.”
Conferences
The Court's order will provide a template that parties must use for the discovery plan and instructions for accessing a conference to be conducted via Zoom.
“The Court's order will provide a template that parties must use for the discovery plan and instructions for accessing a conference to be conducted via Zoom.”
Trial
Trial briefs are encouraged but not required, must be filed five days before the trial date, and shall not contain any new motions.
“Trial briefs are encouraged but not required, must be filed five days before the trial date, and shall not contain any new motions.”
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 Murphy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Walker, the court denied employer summary judgment where testimony conflicted with time records about overtime hours, leaving credibility for a factfinder.
“In sum, Plaintiff has shown that there is a genuine dispute of material question of fact about whether Defendants paid Plaintiff for his overtime work.”
Procedural preferences
In Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security, Murphy adopted an unopposed magistrate judge's recommendation without de novo review, denied the claimant's motion, and granted the Commissioner's motion.
“De novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings is required only if the parties ‘serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.’ ... Because neither party filed objections, de novo review of the Report’s conclusions is not required.”
In Robinson v. Campbell, Murphy dismissed an untimely habeas petition. He found that the petitioner had not shown specific pandemic conditions prevented timely filing, noting that the petitioner prepared his papers without the law library.
“The COVID-19 pandemic is not an extraordinary circumstance for equitable tolling without ‘fact-specific circumstances related to the pandemic that hindered [Petitioner’s] ability to timely file a habeas petition.’”
In one product liability case, the court denied a request to strike a notice of nonparty fault because the cited federal rules apply to pleadings and the notice was not a pleading. The plaintiff could later raise the issue through a motion in limine.
“motions under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(f) can only be directed at pleadings.”
Cautions
In United States v. Zamora, he denied post-verdict motions for acquittal and a new trial, declining to revisit witness credibility under Rule 29 and finding that wiretap and pole-camera evidence corroborated the testimony challenged under Rule 33.
“the mountain of evidence obtained from a wiretap and a pole camera corroborated their testimony to the point where a rational jury could only have found Defendant guilty ... beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court will therefore deny the motion for a new trial.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [16] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment [12] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment [14] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [16] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is GRANTED.”
“WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s renewed motion for a judgment of acquittal [43] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for a new trial [44] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss [9] is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Motion to Dismiss [16] is GRANTED.”
“Motion for Limited Early Discovery [15] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“ORDERED that the motion to dismiss [47] is GRANTED IN PART as described above.”
“motion for summary judgment [90] is DENIED.”
“motion for summary judgment [79] is DENIED.”
“the Court will grant summary judgment for Defendant.”
During preliminary Rule 4 review of a pro se Section 2254 petition, the court found that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies and that relief remained available under Michigan Court Rule 6.500: 'it is hereby ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus [1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.' The court also denied a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. This was a court-initiated screening dismissal rather than a ruling on a party's motion.
The court dismissed a Section 2241 habeas action without prejudice on its own initiative after the petitioner failed to comply with an order to pay the $5 filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis application: 'it is hereby ORDERED that the habeas action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.' It also denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
“WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed matters include Social Security disability appeals, state and federal habeas petitions, and felony criminal cases. His chief-judge and duty assignments also generate warrant and miscellaneous applications, which 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 | 3 |
| 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 | 3 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 3 |
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 Murphy: 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 Murphy with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Murphy, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Murphy's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace