Elizabeth Cowan Wright
How Judge Wright decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On criminal severance she applies the strong presumption favoring joint trials and demands concrete prejudice: speculation about irreconcilable defenses or a jury's inability to compartmentalize evidence is not enough, and she expressly leaves the door open to renew the motion at trial if circumstances develop. The recommended denial survived de novo review.
“Defendant's motion to sever merely speculates that there will be irreconcilable defenses between the co-defendants ... he only offered 'boilerplate statements of potential prejudice' and 'conclusory statements.' ... Defendant may renew his motion to sever at the time of trial if the appropriate circumstances arise.”
A large share of her R&R output on the pro se docket is threshold/procedural: 28 U.S.C. 1915A immunity screening and Rule 41(b) failure-to-prosecute dismissals. Pro se plaintiffs who do not move their case forward (no response, no service follow-through) draw a recommended Rule 41(b) dismissal without prejudice; sovereign/Eleventh Amendment immunity defendants are screened out under 1915A.
“this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.”
On the Social Security appeals she takes by consent, the sampled cases resolved not by a contested cross-motion ruling but by STIPULATED sentence-4 remand to the agency, followed by an unopposed EAJA attorney-fee award to the claimant -- a pattern of facilitating agreed remands rather than litigating the record to a merits decision.
“this case is remanded, pursuant to sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), to the Commissioner of Social Security for supplemental hearing and further administrative action.”
On discovery-conduct disputes she is willing to shift fees and impose structural oversight rather than just deny relief: when she found defense counsel had been dilatory in seeking an out-of-time deposition and had mishandled a Rule 30(b)(6) witness, she ordered a full second corporate-witness deposition at the defendants' expense, awarded the plaintiff her reasonable expenses (including travel costs for an earlier deposition), and required defendants' local counsel to personally review filings and attend every proceeding going forward.
“Defendants' local counsel, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, must participate in the preparation and presentation of all aspects of this case going forward. This participation includes reviewing all correspondence between counsel, participation in all meet-and-confers, reviewing all of Defendants' court filings before they are made, signing all filings, and local counsel's in-person appearance at all depositions and court proceedings going forward.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Priebnow's motion for severance from co-defendants (Doc. No. [169]) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal of Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 13] is DENIED.”
“this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.”
District Judge Donovan W. Frank adopted Magistrate Judge Wright's April 1, 2019 R&R over pro se plaintiff Joel Munt's objections after de novo review. The R&R recommended sua sponte prisoner-screening dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915A of claims against the Minnesota Courts on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds and against the United States Courts on sovereign-immunity and subject-matter-jurisdiction grounds, all without prejudice. Although no party motion prompted the screening, the objections received de novo review and the order contains substantive immunity analysis.
District Judge Katherine M. Menendez adopted Magistrate Judge Wright's March 25, 2024 R&R after clear-error review and no objections, accepting it in full and dismissing the matter sua sponte and without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Chief District Judge John R. Tunheim adopted Magistrate Judge Wright's April 7, 2020 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation without objections and dismissed the pro se action sua sponte and without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
“Young's motion to dismiss the indictment (Doc. No. [25]) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Jean Loic Ouedraogo's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 331) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Barbara Schmitt's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 18) is GRANTED; and 3. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 22) is GRANTED. ... All claims against Hennepin County are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... Defendants Deputy Lisa Kasparek and Deputy Jeffrey Marshall are required to answer or otherwise properly respond to the Complaint, as to Plaintiff's First and Fifth Amendment claims against them in their individual capacities.”
District Judge Donovan W. Frank adopted Magistrate Judge Wright's October 23, 2020 R&R without objections. The pro se plaintiff's complaint was dismissed sua sponte on Section 1915A and jurisdictional screening grounds, with prejudice as to one federal claim and without prejudice as to the remaining claims.
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt. 24) be GRANTED and Plaintiff be AWARDED $3,675.00 for reasonable attorney's fees under the EAJA.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Of the 10 ECW-assigned dockets surfaced, the dominant nature-of-suit is Social Security (DIWC/DIWW, SSID Tit. XVI) taken by consent, with a few insurance and one FLSA labor case. The two SS dockets read both ended in STIPULATED sentence-4 remands (not contested cross-MSJ rulings), each followed by an unopposed EAJA fee award. Sampled 2026-06-03; not exhaustive. Example durations: Born v. Saul filed 2020-03-20, terminated 2021-03-01 (~346 days, with a long COVID-era stay for transcript production); Blong v. Bisignano filed 2022-04-22, terminated 2023-01-31 (~284 days).
Put Judge Wright's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Wright actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Wright's own signed orders and cites them.