Jerry Wayne Blackwell
How Judge Blackwell rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Blackwell
Jerry Wayne Blackwell is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Blackwell received a commission on December 20, 2022.
Judge Blackwell's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Blackwell, 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.
- Judge Jerry W. Blackwell's Practice Pointers ↗
- Standing Order No. 1 and Attachment ↗
- Standing Order No. 2 ↗
- Standing Order No. 3 ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Get chambers' permission before filing a substantive letter, which may be no longer than two pages.
“Substantive matters must be addressed either in a formal motion or a letter of no more than two pages filed on ECF. No letter may be filed prior to receiving permission from chambers.”
Filing
For briefs relying on more than 100 pages of supporting materials, send a hyperlinked electronic courtesy copy.
“please provide a HYPERLINKED ELECTRONIC COURTESY COPY of any brief that relies on more than 100 pages of exhibits, affidavits, and/or declarations.”
Motions
Represented parties filing or opposing a dispositive civil motion must submit a proposed order.
“Each party filing or opposing any dispositive civil motion must submit a proposed order.”
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 Blackwell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Collins v. Fikes, Blackwell reviewed specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation anew and reviewed the remaining findings for clear error. He explained that objections merely repeating arguments already considered did not receive de novo review, then adopted the recommendation.
“objections to an R&R that 'are not specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error'”
Blackwell dismissed a minor's claims without prejudice because the parent, who was not an attorney, could not represent the child in federal court. The ruling left the claims available to be filed through counsel.
“To pursue the claims asserted on her child's behalf in this matter, McCall must have counsel.”
Blackwell denied suppression of evidence from a supervised-release search. He held that the defendant's known search condition permitted a search without reasonable suspicion and also found reasonable suspicion from a detailed informant tip.
“The Eighth Circuit in Kuhnel plainly stated that suspicionless searches are permissible under conditions much like those imposed on Defendant, when the defendant had been made aware of such a condition.”
In a Social Security appeal, Blackwell rejected a recommendation to affirm the agency and remanded after finding that the administrative law judge had not explained why a limitation from a persuasive medical opinion was omitted from the functional assessment.
“The ALJ may have a valid reason for excluding the proposed superficial interaction limitation in her RFC, but that reason must be explained.”
In a civil rights suit challenging state and local regulation, Blackwell dismissed for lack of standing because the plaintiffs' misunderstanding of the law did not establish an actual injury.
“Because Plaintiffs' claims all rest on this fundamental flaw, their mistaken beliefs that they have been aggrieved through wrongful application of state and local regulations are not actual injuries sufficient to confer standing in federal court.”
In Kroger, Blackwell rejected a pretrial habeas petition used to challenge an ongoing federal prosecution. He reviewed specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and held that the petition could not replace the procedures available in the criminal case.
“habeas corpus petition is an improper vehicle by which to challenge proceedings in an ongoing federal criminal action.”
In Compeer, the court allowed an unopposed receiver reappointment to restart the statutory filing period after finding good cause and no prejudice to the parties. The order reminded the receiver to comply with the original appointment terms.
“Neither will be prejudiced by the reappointment, as both were present at the hearing where appointment was initially granted.”
Cautions
In Ballard, he allowed the race-discrimination and reprisal claims to reach trial but limited a vocational expert’s opinions when they relied on unsupported assumptions about future earnings and causation.
“Any future-loss calculation must rest on assumptions independently supported by admissible evidence”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED; The Complaint (Doc. No. 9) is DISMISSED with prejudice”
“Plaintiff's self-styled Sur-Reply/Motion (Doc. No. 38) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendants Dr. Morgan, Karin Parsons, and Rachel Wolfe's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 53) is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Dr. Morgan from Count II (Doc. Nos. 76, 80) is GRANTED;”
“Defendant Jonathan Mathisen's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 61) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED.”
“Petitioner Juan C.M.C.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED IN PART.”
“the motion to dissolve (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED.”
Blackwell adopted an unopposed recommendation and dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute; no party motion was decided.
“Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 331) is DENIED.”
“Motion to Reappoint Receiver (Doc. No. 135) is GRANTED.”
“(Doc. No. 1) is DENIED;”
“Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED as moot.”
“the motion to dissolve (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot.”
“certified inmate trust account statement (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to update official mailing address (Doc. No. 7) is DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Blackwell-assigned dockets confirmed via the docket records, sampled across his own post-appointment filings (cases filed 2023-2026, both terminated and pending, 23-docket sample).
- Nature-of-suit mix in the sample: ERISA (Keller v. North Memorial Health Care), insurance and long-term-disability (NRA of America v. Allianz Life; several Hartford/Prudential/Lincoln National disability-benefit suits), antitrust (In re Granulated Sugar Antitrust Litigation, an MDL), TCPA (Schultz v. Realty Group), civil rights / ADA accommodations (Alexander v. Olson Property Investments; Scherer v. MSP Bloomington; Aho v. Cass County), Social Security appeals (Woldeyohannes v. O'Malley; Lyons v. O'Malley), and a wave of Section 2241 habeas petitions from federal prisoners and, more recently, alien detainees tied to immigration enforcement.
- Representative terminated-case durations (from filing to termination): Alexander v. Olson ~2021-03-31 to 2023-10-26 (~939d); Keller v. North Memorial ~2022-07-15 to 2024-01-25 (~559d); Schultz v. Realty Group ~2021-10-06 to 2023-03-14 (~524d); NRA v. Allianz ~2023-08-24 to 2024-08-12 (~354d); Jensen v. Minnesota Board of Medical Practice ~2023-06-06 to 2025-03-31 (~664d).
- Habeas and Social Security matters resolve faster, typically within two to eight months of filing.
- Not exhaustive.
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 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
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 Blackwell: 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 Blackwell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Blackwell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Blackwell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace