Shannon G. Elkins
How Judge Elkins rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Elkins
Shannon G. Elkins has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota since 2024. Before joining the bench, she spent more than a decade representing federal criminal defendants as an assistant federal defender in Minnesota.
Judge Elkins's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Elkins, 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
Contacting chambers
Limit IDR letters to three pages and email them to chambers and all parties at least two business days before the conference.
“letter submissions shall be no more than three (3) pages long and must be emailed to Chambers and all parties at least two (2) business days before the Zoom video conference.”
Filing
Do not send paper courtesy copies; email proposed orders in Word format.
“Please do not send paper courtesy copies of filings to Chambers. Parties should email courtesy copies of proposed orders in Word format to [email protected].”
Motions
For contested motions, request a hearing date before filing even if the parties prefer no hearing.
“A hearing date must be requested before the motion is filed, even if the parties agree that no hearing is necessary.”
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 Elkins decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Dusek v. Vaught, she recommended denying a habeas petition as moot after the prisoner received the requested transfer and she found no mootness exception applicable.
“Mr. Dusek's petition is moot because he has received the relief sought and does not qualify for an exception to mootness.”
In a discovery dispute over communications with a civilly committed plaintiff’s parents and another lawyer, Elkins held that sharing work product did not waive protection where the disclosures did not materially increase the chance an adversary would obtain it. She also found no showing of substantial need for the documents.
“Simply because work product was shared with Plaintiff’s other counsel and his parents does not mean the work product protection has been waived.”
Cautions
In Spottswood's prisoner civil-rights case, Elkins recommended dismissal without prejudice under Heck because a successful damages claim would undermine his still-standing state conviction.
“It is clear from the Amended Complaint that any successful damages claim Mr. Spottswood asserts here would necessarily undermine his state-court conviction. ... Heck therefore bars the remaining claims in this action. The Court thus recommends dismissing this matter without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
In this in forma pauperis civil-rights action, Elkins lifted a prior stay and recommended dismissing the remaining damages claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). She found the claims barred by Heck v. Humphrey because the plaintiff had pleaded guilty in the underlying state criminal case and the conviction had not been favorably terminated. The available materials do not show a later district-judge adoption, so the outcome remains a recommendation.
District Judge Donovan W. Frank's ORDER ADOPTING Elkins's April 8, 2025 R&R (no objections), which recommended dismissing the action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Adopted in full; not a party-motion ruling. R&R-to-adoption interval = 15 days. The order states: 'Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins's April 8, 2025 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. [8]) is ADOPTED.... This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.'
“Franklin's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot.”
“Mr. Dusek's petition is moot because he has received the relief sought and does not qualify for an exception to mootness. ... IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2241, Dkt. 1 ... be DENIED.”
“The Motion for Expedited Review and Consideration, Dkt. 5, be DENIED as moot.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 34) be GRANTED;”
“The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 1] is DENIED... This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Petitioner's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [Docket No. 2] and Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 3] are DENIED as moot”
“Mr. McKeever's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. 87) be DENIED... Mr. McKeever's Motions to Dismiss the Indictment (Dkts. 95, 97) be DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure (Dkt. 96) be DENIED.”
“to the extent Mr. McKeever requests disclosure of materials that has already been ordered, his Motions (Dkt. 153, 154, 155) are DENIED AS MOOT”
“To the extent Mr. McKeever seeks the imposition of sanctions, his Motions (Dkts. 153, 154, 155) are DENIED.”
“Ms. S’s request for relief (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above; 2. The Commissioner’s request for relief (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 3. This matter is remanded to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)”
“The Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint as to Count II Only (Dkt. 35) is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff’s request for relief (Doc. Nos. 12, 17) is GRANTED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Read off case-level docket records.
- Elkins's docket-visible docket as a duty/referral magistrate is heavily CRIMINAL-DUTY (magistrate-judge numbers '0:26-mj-...': initial appearances/complaints e.g. US v. Cunningham, US v. Perkins, US v. Noriega-Garcia; multiple sealed 'In re: Search Warrant' matters; she also handled detention in the high-profile US v. Eichorn matter per press) plus a stream of SOCIAL SECURITY appeal referrals filed against the SSA Commissioner ('v. Bisignano': Byers, Clark, Rigg, S.A.A., Bell) and pro se prisoner/civil-rights screening (the R&R cases above).
- Consistent with a newly-appointed magistrate carrying the criminal duty rotation and a civil referral/screening load.
- Nature-of-suit fields were blank on these records; mix inferred from case captions and docket-number type (mj vs cv).
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 |
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 Elkins: 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 Elkins with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Elkins, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Elkins's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace