Jane Marie Beckering
How Judge Beckering rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Beckering
Jane Marie Beckering is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Beckering received a commission on December 21, 2021.
Judge Beckering's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Beckering, 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.
Key rules
Filing
Send bound courtesy copies of dispositive-motion papers and exhibits to chambers within 24 hours after filing.
“a courtesy copy of all dispositive motion papers, including responses, replies, and all accompanying exhibits, is requested to be submitted directly to Chambers. The courtesy copy should comply with the requirements listed in the local rules and must be hand delivered or sent via first class mail to Chambers within twenty-four (24) hours of filing the original. All submitted courtesy copies should be bound.”
Motions
To request oral argument, put “ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED” in the motion caption and brief heading.
“To request oral argument on a motion, state ‘ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED’ in the caption and the heading of the brief.”
Conferences
Seek a scheduling change first through opposing counsel and the case manager; if counsel does not consent, file the request in CM/ECF.
“If you need a scheduling change, you must first reach agreement with opposing counsel and then contact the Case Manager. It is incumbent upon the party requesting a change to notify the opposing party of the request and, if granted, the new date. Judge Beckering’s Case Manager, Rick Wolters, may be contacted by calling (616) 456-2351 or by emailing [email protected]. In situations where an opposing attorney will not consent to the proposed change, the party requesting it should submit a CM/ECF filing, stating reasons for the change.”
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 Beckering decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Hardrick v. Unknown Nolani, Beckering reviewed the prisoner’s three specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation de novo, denied them, and adopted the recommendation granting summary judgment to the defendants.
“In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for summary judgment on the basis of exhaustion (ECF Nos. 25 & 28) are GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Ouellette and Hill's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bronson Physician John Doe's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED as to the federal claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, which are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants KDPS Officer John Doe 3 and KDPS Officer John Doe 4 are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to timely effect service.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. Defendant The United Methodist Church is DISMISSED from this action because it is a religious denomination, not a legal entity.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for leave to amend the complaint (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the motion is granted to the extent Plaintiff seeks to name the Michigan Conference of the United Methodist Church as a defendant. The motion is denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks to add the ‘Board of Trustees’ and Bishop David Alan Bard as defendants in this action.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Rife's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 20 & 28) are GRANTED IN PART by dismissing Defendants D. Hall, Golladay and B. Hall, and DENIED IN PART as to Defendants Smith and Bergeron.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as described in the Report and Recommendation, and Defendant Silliman is TERMINATED from this case.”
“The Court will enter an Order and Judgment denying the § 2254 petition as well as a certificate of appealability.”
“The Court will enter an order and judgment granting Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of exhaustion, denying Petitioner's motions for ‘entry statement evidence exhibit request’ (ECF Nos. 6 and 8), and denying a certificate of appealability.”
“The Court will enter a judgment dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of exhaustion and denying a certificate of appealability.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
In this fixed sample of 15 early-2022 civil filings, seven concern prisoner conditions, one is habeas, two are other civil-rights matters, one concerns labor standards, one is a rent case, one is a contract case, and two have no usable nature-of-suit code. These observed counts describe only the sampled 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 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 7 |
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 United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not for Judge Beckering: 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 | 1,042 | 7.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 107 | 2.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 714 | 6.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 217 | 14.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,042 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 906 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 847 | 6.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,033 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,081 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 844 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 893 | 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 Beckering with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Beckering, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Beckering's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace