Michael James Davis
How Judge Davis rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Davis
Michael James Davis is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Davis received a commission on March 28, 1994. Judge Davis assumed senior status on August 1, 2015.
Judge Davis's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Davis, 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
Filing
Send chambers two organized courtesy copies of motion papers.
“parties are to send chambers two courtesy copies of motion papers under the ECF Filing Rules. Judge Davis requires that the courtesy copies be organized”
Motions
Get special permission before filing summary judgment prior to the discovery deadline.
“Parties may not file a motion for summary judgement prior to the discovery deadline unless they have received special permission from the Court.”
Motions
Do not file separate motions for individual complaint counts to gain more briefing space.
“Parties shall not file a separate motion for each count of the complaint in order to gain additional briefing.”
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 Davis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United National Insurance Company v. Gunderson, Inc., he denied the insurer's summary-judgment motion after reading the settlement as a whole and finding that the insurer's proposed release interpretation would render most other provisions meaningless.
“A reviewing court must construe a contract as a whole so as to harmonize all provisions, if possible, and to avoid a construction that would render one or more provisions meaningless. ... Adopting United National’s construction would render the majority of the provisions in this contract unnecessary and obsolete.”
In Paulausky v. Mayo Clinic, Davis applied the Eighth Circuit's physical-presence rule to dismiss the remote employee's Minnesota Human Rights Act claims for lack of standing because she had no physical presence in Minnesota.
“Kuklenski affirmed the District Court decision that a remote employee cannot satisfy the 'works in' requirement with only non-physical-presence contacts with the state and must have a physical presence in Minnesota to be covered by the protections of the MHRA.”
In an ERISA insurance dispute, Davis granted equitable relief after the enrollment records showed premiums were collected before supplemental life coverage took effect; a flawed billing and approval process mattered to the fiduciary-duty analysis.
“As a fiduciary, the Court finds that Reliance had a duty to ensure its system of administration did not allow it to collect premiums until coverage was actually in force.”
Procedural preferences
In J.S. v. Saint Paul Academy and Summit School, he ruled on a dismissal motion after the plaintiff missed the opposition deadline despite a reminder from court staff; he granted dismissal on the merits and later refused to reopen the judgment on that basis.
“The Court’s staff contacted Plaintiff when he failed to meet that deadline, but Plaintiff nevertheless neglected to file an opposition or a motion to extend the relevant deadlines. ... the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the merits”
In an emergency detention-habeas matter, Davis temporarily barred transfer out of Minnesota to preserve access to counsel and judicial review, while leaving the requested bond hearing unresolved at the TRO stage.
“The Court will grant the motion at this time to the extent Petitioner seeks to enjoin Respondents from removing him from this District.”
Cautions
In J.S. v. Saint Paul Academy and Summit School, he denied post-judgment relief because the plaintiff offered legal theories that could have been raised in opposition to dismissal rather than grounds for Rule 60(b) relief.
“Rule 60(b) does not allow a defeated litigant a second chance to convince the court to rule in his or her favor by presenting new explanations, legal theories, or proof. ... The Court will not entertain novel legal theories at this late stage.”
In Kou Lee’s compassionate-release motion, Davis enforced the First Step Act exhaustion requirement after the government raised it and dismissed without prejudice without reaching release factors.
“administrative exhaustion requirement is a mandatory claim-processing rule.”
In Lund, Davis denied suppression despite an incomplete vehicle inventory form because the record did not show additional evidence that the inventory search was used as a pretext for investigation.
“there must be something else besides the failure to conduct a search according to standardized procedures”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 124] is DENIED.”
“The Court therefore accepts the parties’ stipulation and dismisses Davis‐Frost without prejudice. ... Defendant Gunderson’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 109] is GRANTED and Defendant Davis‐Frost is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from this action.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment and Order [Docket No. 39] and Motion to Extend Time [Docket No. 44] are DENIED”
“Plaintiff New Oil Christian Center's Motion for Partial-Summary Judgment [Doc. 73] is GRANTED;”
“Defendant GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 92] is DENIED;”
“Defendant Mayo Clinic’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff Nichole Paulausky’s Complaint [Doc. 8] is GRANTED;”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 36] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Petitioner Bewaji Olabamidele Olumide’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1] is DENIED;”
“Petitioner Bewaji Olabamidele Olumide’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 17] is DENIED as moot;”
“Petitioner Brayan M.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:”
“Defendant Xavier Jerome Buckhanan’s [Third] Pro Se Motion to Compel [Doc. 148] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Disclose Sealed Order Approving Distribution of Settlement Proceeds [Doc. 102] is GRANTED;”
“Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1] is DENIED;”
“Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence from Search Warrant [Doc. 148] is DENIED.”
“Defendant Kou Lee’s Motion for Sentence Reduction [Doc. 590] is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 182 days (N = 14).
- From the docket records. Recent assignments (2026) are overwhelmingly alien-detainee § 2241 habeas petitions plus criminal cases; 2015 shows numerous attorney-discipline 'In re' miscellaneous matters (chief-judge duty); older terminated civil cases include insurance-coverage, civil-rights, copyright (Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset), and securities disputes.
- Senior judge (since 2015) still actively assigned cases in 2026.
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 9 | 13 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 7 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 6 |
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 Davis: 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 Davis with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Davis, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Davis's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace