Jeffrey Marc Bryan
How Judge Bryan rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bryan
Jeffrey Marc Bryan is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Bryan received a commission on November 30, 2023.
Judge Bryan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bryan, 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
Motions
For dispositive motions, ask the deputy for a hearing date at least ten days before the filing deadline.
“the moving party should contact the Courtroom Deputy no less than 10 days before any deadline for filing the motion.”
Motions
Request an increased page or word limit by ECF motion at least seven days before the brief is due.
“Requests to enlarge page- or word-count limits must be made in the form of a motion filed on ECF. Such requests must be made at least 7 days in advance”
Motions
Ask permission by email before filing summary judgment before discovery closes.
“Parties wishing to file a motion for summary judgment prior to the close of discovery must request permission to do so by emailing Judge Bryan’s”
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).
- Amended Administrative Order: Procedures for Storage and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- General Order No. 1: Filing Sealed Documents with Highly Sensitive Information ↗
- General Order No. 2: Removing Sealed Documents with Highly Sensitive Information from CM/ECF ↗
- Administrative Order: Encryption of Electronic Materials and Cloud Storage Links ↗
How Judge Bryan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Frank v. State of Minnesota, he liberally construed a self-represented prisoner's filing as an objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation but overruled it because the prisoner offered legal theories without identifying an error of law or fact.
“Frank offers various legal theories to support his objection but does not identify any error of law or fact that warrants rejection of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.”
In Michel Sales Co. v. Ningbo GI Power, he waived the preliminary-injunction bond after the defendants did not oppose the motion or show potential damages from a wrongful injunction. The ruling rested on an unopposed record.
“The Court agrees. Ningbo has not defended against this motion, let alone offered any argument to the contrary.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
28 U.S.C. 1915A prisoner-screening disposition (not a party motion). Pro se plaintiff's 'Motion to Reinstate' construed as an objection to U.S. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois's R&R; Bryan reviewed challenged portions de novo and unchallenged findings for clear error, gave the self-represented filing liberal construction, overruled the objection and adopted the R&R. Most 1983 claims dismissed without prejudice (incl. a Miranda claim held not actionable under 1983); individual-capacity claims against Officers Z. Johnson and B. Musich proceed.
Habeas petition dismissed as MOOT (procedural, not a merits grant/deny). No objections filed; Bryan reviewed U.S. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster's R&R for clear error and adopted it.
Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute (court-initiated, not a party motion). No objections; Bryan reviewed U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko's R&R for clear error and adopted it.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Eduardo Moreno's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED”
“Plaintiffs Michael Campoli's and Lauren Campoli's motion for a preliminary injunction against Defendant TrustFunds LLC (Doc. No. 108) is DENIED.”
“Yang's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. Nos. 3, 4) is DENIED.”
“Michel Sales Company's motion for a preliminary injunction against Defendants Ningbo GI Power Co. Ltd., Ningbo GI Power Import & Export Co. Ltd., Deko Group LLC, and Deko Electric LLC ... the Court grants Michel's motion.”
“Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Ningbo GI Power Import & Export Co. Ltd.'s Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 44) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Michel Sales Company's Motion for Contempt (Doc. No. 51) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Michel Sales Company's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 31) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Travon Lavelle Blackman's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. No. 73) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, (Doc. No. 4), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature”
“Plaintiff Delaneo-Nathaniel Tillman:El's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Bryan-assigned dockets confirmed via the docket records, sampled mid-2026.
- His current civil docket is heavy with ERISA / insurance long-term-disability and life-benefits suits (Williams v. Lincoln National Life; Henderson & Ford v. MetLife; Babcock v. Reliance Standard) and a wave of alien-detainee 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas petitions tied to recent immigration enforcement, plus consumer/products and employment matters (Cox v. Delta Air Lines, Nelson v. Kia America, Tyler v. Lionsgate Academy).
- The published orders reviewed here were prisoner-screening, habeas, and failure-to-prosecute dismissals.
- Not exhaustive. Six dockets were read in full for the motion timeline below: three reassigned 2023-filed cases (an ADEA employment suit, a Section 1983 campus-intervention suit, and a municipal equal-protection suit) plus three of his own 2026-filed alien-detainee habeas petitions, each granting the petitioner's immediate release within days of filing.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 8 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 8 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
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 District of Minnesota, not for Judge Bryan: 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 | 2,681 | 8.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,499 | 5.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 645 | 7.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 525 | 13.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 39.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,681 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,636 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,579 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,701 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,737 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 3,259 | 14.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 8,151 | 21.6 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 Bryan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bryan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bryan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace