Paul Arthur Magnuson
How Judge Magnuson rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Magnuson
Paul Arthur Magnuson is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Magnuson received a commission on October 29, 1981. Judge Magnuson assumed senior status on February 9, 2002.
Judge Magnuson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Magnuson, 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
Provide two hard copies of law memoranda and one of affidavits, exhibits, and other supporting materials.
“Judge Magnuson requests two courtesy hard copies of the memoranda of law, and one copy of affidavits, exhibits, and other supporting documents.”
Motions
Parties need not meet and confer before filing a dispositive motion.
“The parties need not meet and confer before filing a dispositive motion.”
Motions
Set dispositive oral argument at least 42 days after filing motion papers.
“Oral argument on dispositive motions must take place at least 42 days after the filing of a party’s motion papers.”
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 Magnuson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Norris v. ARS National Service Inc., he denied the debt collector's summary-judgment request because the parties disputed what happened in unrecorded phone calls and the jury would have to assess their credibility.
“It will be for the jury to determine whether Plaintiffs or ARS’s employees are telling the truth about what transpired.”
In A.M.J. v. Royalton Public Schools, Magnuson granted summary judgment on the plaintiff's negligence claims because she had not identified an expert to define the school administrators' duty of care in exercising professional judgment.
“Plaintiff’s failure to identify an expert to define the duty of care Defendants owed her in the exercise of their professional judgment as school administrators is fatal to her negligence claims”
In Westfield, Magnuson found that an arguably covered subcontractor claim triggered the insurer’s duty to defend the contractor in the underlying arbitration. He also awarded the contractor its defense costs.
“and those claims are thus arguably covered by the policy. Westfield has the duty to defend Miller in the arbitration.”
Procedural preferences
In Norris v. ARS National Service Inc., Magnuson told the plaintiffs to seek dismissal of an unidentified defendant by motion or stipulation instead of a footnote in their opposition brief; he also declined to consider new allegations raised only in that brief.
“But a footnote in an opposition brief is not the appropriate way to accomplish the dismissal of a Defendant. It is Plaintiffs’ responsibility to file a motion or stipulation so the Court’s record can reflect the realities of the case.”
In the insurance class action, Magnuson kept the damages actuary’s testimony available and treated repeat objections to his model as subjects for cross-examination after reviewing his experience and work in comparable cases.
“The Court persists in the view that State Farm’s arguments are better suited for cross examination, and State Farm’s Daubert Motion is denied.”
Cautions
In Qamunga v. Kings Valley Homeowners Association, Magnuson dismissed an FDCPA claim against a law firm but denied its Rule 11 motion because the plaintiff's counsel had not intentionally or recklessly disregarded duties to the court.
“While the Court believes that the FDCPA claim against Smith Jadin Johnson is without merit, there is no indication that Plaintiff’s counsel intentionally or recklessly disregarded any duties to the court. ... Rule 11 sanctions are not warranted.”
In an underinsured-motorist coverage dispute, Magnuson denied early partial summary judgment without prejudice under Rule 56(d) because discovery could reveal other available policies.
“whether the policy reasons underlying Latterell dictate the result Kulane seeks in this Motion must await further factual development.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 32) is GRANTED as to dismissal”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, Discovery, and Scheduling of a Court Proceeding to Determine Damages (Docket No. 43) is DENIED”
“Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 57) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 48) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Smith Jadin Johnson, PLLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 22) is GRANTED”
“Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 42) is DENIED.”
“The Government's Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Henny Docket No. 33; Stamps Docket No. 18) are GRANTED”
“Plaintiff Alessandra Katie Stamps' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 31) is DENIED as moot”
“the Court denies the request for authorization and orders that this proceeding be closed”
Preservice screening of a pro se prisoner civil-rights complaint; adopted the magistrate judge's R&R and dismissed the lead plaintiff's claims without prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2), with the co-plaintiffs' claims dismissed for lack of standing.
“Defendant the Minnesota Orchestral Association’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 57) is GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The Petition (Docket No. 1) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 4) are DENIED as moot because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter”
“The Government’s Motion for a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (Docket No. 56) is GRANTED”
“Light’s Motion for appointment of counsel, resentencing, and immediate release (Docket Nos. 172, 173, 174.) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 27) is GRANTED; and 2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 39 days (N = 2).
From the docket records. Recent assignments (2026) are overwhelmingly '463 Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee' petitions plus criminal cases; older terminated cases include FDCPA/consumer-credit, civil-rights employment, and Target-litigation civil suits. Senior judge still carrying an active and varied caseload.
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 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 111 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 111 |
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 Magnuson: 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 Magnuson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Magnuson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Magnuson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace