John F. Docherty
How Judge Docherty rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Docherty
John F. Docherty became a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota in July 2021 and sits in St. Paul. He previously served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Minnesota and as a prosecutor with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Judge Docherty's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Docherty, 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.
- Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty's Practice Pointers ↗
- 26(f) Report Template - General - PDF ↗
- 26(f) Report Template - General - DOCX ↗
- 26(f) Report Template - Patent - PDF ↗
- 26(f) Report Template - Patent - DOCX ↗
- 26(f) Report Template - ERISA - PDF ↗
- 26(f) Report Template - ERISA - DOCX ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Request relief by motion, stipulation, or informal dispute resolution, not an email or call.
“Requests for relief must be brought by motion, stipulation, or by using Magistrate Judge Docherty’s informal dispute resolution”
Motions
Contact chambers to set a submission date even when the parties agree to decision on the papers.
“Even if the parties agree that a motion can be submitted on the papers without oral argument, chambers must be contacted to set the date for submission of the matter to the Court.”
Conferences
Discuss electronic discovery and be ready to address it at the pretrial conference.
“The parties must discuss whether electronic discovery will be a factor in their case and be prepared to discuss electronic discovery issues at the pretrial conference.”
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 Docherty decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Hart, Docherty recommended denying defendants’ single motion to enforce a partial settlement or obtain partial judgment on the pleadings. Davis adopted that recommendation after reviewing defendants’ objection.
“Defendant objects to the part of the Recommendation stating that the motion should be dismissed in its entirety ... the Court will overrule Defendant's objection and adopt the Report and Recommendation dated November 22, 2023.”
In Heggs, the district judge considered the plaintiff’s untimely pro se objections, found them nonspecific, and adopted Docherty’s recommendation after clear-error review.
“because Heggs's objections lack specificity, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. ... Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error.”
In United States v. Parker, he denied a request for a Franks hearing by direct order after concluding the defendant could not challenge the same search warrant at issue in his suppression motion.
“Because Mr. Parker's Motion for a Franks hearing (Dkt. No. 24) attacks the same search warrant and the Court finds that Mr. Parker cannot contest that warrant, the Court also, by Order, denies Mr. Parker's Motion for a Franks hearing.”
When a plaintiff timely amended her complaint as of right, Docherty treated both her amendment motion and the defendants’ dismissal motion directed at the superseded pleading as moot. He set briefing for the separate motion aimed at the amended complaint.
“The Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 31) is now the operative complaint.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Rochester Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 20) be GRANTED and all claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;”
“Defendants Olmsted County and Jeffrey D. Hill’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 28) be GRANTED and all claims be DISMISSED WITH PREDJUCICE;”
“Defendants’ Motion to Enforce the Partial Settlement Agreement or for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings be DENIED.”
“Petitioner Britney Kay Hays’s petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. No. 1) be DENIED and that this matter be dismissed without prejudice.”
“Mr. Parker’s Motion for a Franks Hearing (Dkt. No. 24) is DENIED;”
“Mr. Parker’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (Dkt. No. 23) be DENIED,”
“Mr. Parker’s Motion for Disclosure of Informants (Dkt. No. 22) is DENIED.”
“Mr. Early’s Motion for Leave to File Untimely Motions and Reopen Previously Filed Motions (Dkt. No. 86) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, FarmSTAND’s Motion for Further Consideration is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Ballast Advisors, LLC’s Motion for Sanctions under Rule 37(e)(1) (Dkt. No. 148) be GRANTED; ... Plaintiff Ballast Advisors, LLC’s Motion for Sanctions under Rule 37(e)(2) (Dkt. No. 148) be DEFERRED until trial and submitted to the jury.”
“Mr. Sean Roulo’s Petition (Dkt. No. 1) be DENIED; and 2. This matter be DISMISSED.”
“Mr. Wilson’s Motion to Compel Functional Access to Discovery (Dkt. No. 48) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;”
“Mr. Wilson’s Supplemental Motion to Compel Functional Access to Discovery (Dkt. No. 56) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;”
“Mr. Wilson’s Motions to Enforce (Dkt. Nos. 60 and 62) are DENIED as moot;”
“Mr. Wilson’s Motion to Request Separate Review of Dkt. 59 (Dkt. No. 75) is DENIED;”
“Mr. Wilson’s Motion for Clarification (Dkt. No. 78) is DENIED as moot;”
“Petitioner Andrew Stephen Williams’s Motion to Stay Habeas Corpus Petition Pending Rule 60.02 Motion in Minnesota District Court (Dkt. No. 2) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Mr. Williams’s Motion Showing Good Cause and Prejudice (Dkt. No. 13), which the Court construes as a renewed motion to stay, be DE- NIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Mr. Williams’s alternative request for factual development and an ev- identiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), as presented in Dkt. Nos. 11 and 12, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.”
“Petitioner Islamuddin A.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1) be GRANTED to the extent set forth above and that Petitioner be released immediately.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 541.0 days (N = 16).
Descriptive from the nature-of-suit/cause fields across the enumerated consent cohort; not an exhaustive census. Several consent cases were filed before his July 2021 commission but decided by him after the parties consented, so the filed-to-terminated span reflects the SS appeal cycle, not a reassignment artifact.
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 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 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 Docherty: 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 Docherty with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Docherty, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Docherty's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace