Paul Lewis Maloney
How Judge Maloney rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Maloney
Paul Lewis Maloney is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Maloney received a commission on July 13, 2007.
Judge Maloney's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Maloney's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Maloney decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Velasco Rojas v. First Pick Farms, Maloney held that the farmworkers plausibly alleged joint employment under the AWPA. He dismissed two entities formed after the alleged violations because the complaint did not establish independent or alter-ego liability for them.
“Considering both the FLSA test and the AWPA regulations regarding joint employment together, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that Defendants were their joint employers for the sake of the AWPA.”
In Willis, Maloney denied summary judgment on an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against two defendants because the evidence could permit a jury to find a violation of a clearly established right.
“Because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, would permit a reasonable juror to find that the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal by summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity is inappropriate.”
Procedural preferences
In McGowen v. MacLaren, Maloney rejected a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss a habeas petition as untimely because he found that the state had deliberately waived the limitations defense.
“Because the State deliberately waived any statute of limitations defense, the Court need not address Defendants' remaining arguments... Petitioner's objection is hereby SUSTAINED IN PART; the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is hereby REJECTED.”
In Scott v. City of Battle Creek, Maloney found the plaintiff’s objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation too general because it did not identify a specific factual finding or legal conclusion in dispute.
“Rather, Plaintiff's objection constitutes a general disagreement with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge rather than a disagreement about specific finding of fact or conclusion of law.”
Cautions
In Atkins v. Dawdy, Maloney denied a prisoner’s request to use a different name in the case caption because prison records used his commitment name and the court needed those records to screen the complaint.
“Administrative convenience provides a compelling reason for this Court to follow suit.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court GRANTS in part and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment [# 15]. Count one, the FMLA claim, is DISMISSED with prejudice. Count two, the MPDCRA claim, is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).”
“Denying the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus;”
“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #4) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. This action is terminated.”
“Accordingly, because Plaintiff is an incarcerated, pro se litigant, the Court finds that he is not an appropriate representative of a class. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff's request for class certification.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Steed's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED.”
A rare order in which the judge REJECTED a magistrate's sua sponte recommendation to dismiss a habeas petition as untimely, after independently determining the state had deliberately waived any statute-of-limitations defense in its answer rather than raising it through inadvertence, which under controlling Supreme Court precedent barred sua sponte dismissal on timeliness grounds. No motion ruling recorded here (a procedural R&R rejection, not a ruling on a party's motion), but it evidences genuinely independent de novo review rather than rubber-stamping recommendations.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 105) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 139) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Spoelman's motion for summary judgment (Case No. 1:15-cv-1172, ECF No. 34) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against him are DISMISSED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, for summary judgment (Case No.1:15-cv-388, ECF No. 46) is DENIED.”
PLRA screening opinion dismissing a prisoner's RLUIPA/First Amendment claim seeking possession of banned religious literature, holding a prior circuit-level RLUIPA ruling had already resolved that the literature ban served a compelling security interest. Certified that any appeal would not be in good faith.
“the Court will deny class certification and will dismiss, for failure to state a claim, Defendants Washington, Gasper, and Rajala”
“Plaintiff's motions seeking injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 5, 17, 18) will be denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed cases span consumer, disability-access, and civil-rights litigation; prisoner civil-rights and habeas suits; Social Security disability appeals; and commercial insurance and contract disputes, including a multi-year arbitration fight over a crop-insurance policy.
- One pending contract case transferred from New Jersey remains in active discovery with no dispositive ruling, while an H-2A farmworker case already has a written ruling analyzed in this profile.
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 | 78 |
| 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 | 78 | 15 |
| Sep 2025 | 101 | 16 |
| Mar 2025 | 54 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 45 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 46 | 9 |
| Sep 2023 | 28 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 17 | 11 |
| Sep 2022 | 15 | 12 |
| Mar 2022 | 16 | 14 |
| Sep 2021 | 29 | 10 |
| Mar 2021 | 22 | 11 |
| Sep 2020 | 17 | 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 Maloney: 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 Maloney with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Maloney, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Maloney's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace