Susan Beth Richard Nelson
How Judge Nelson rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Nelson
Susan Richard Nelson is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Nelson received a commission on December 21, 2010. Judge Nelson assumed senior status on December 31, 2021.
Judge Nelson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Nelson, 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 courtesy copies of motion papers, organized and punched without staples.
“The parties are to send chambers two courtesy copies of motion papers under the Local Rules. Judge Nelson requires that the courtesy copies be organized, with tabs as appropriate, three-hole punched, without staples.”
Filing
File a submission on Monday when its deadline falls on a weekend.
“When a deadline for a submission falls on a weekend, the submissions should be filed on the following Monday.”
Motions
Request a page or word limit increase by ECF letter before filing the brief.
“Requests for page or word count extensions should be submitted by filing a letter on ECF and must be requested in advance of filing the subject brief.”
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 Nelson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Meyer v. Haeg, she dismissed a civil commercial-bribery claim because the cited Minnesota statute criminalized the conduct but did not create a private cause of action.
“The law in Minnesota is clear that commercial bribery exists only as a criminal act—not a civil cause of action. ... '[A] criminal statute does not automatically give rise to a civil cause of action unless the statute expressly or by clear implication so provides.'”
In Meyer v. Haeg, she applied the requirement for specific objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation and declined to treat general objections or new arguments first raised there as grounds for de novo review.
“the burden is on the objecting party to note—with specificity—the basis upon which he objects to each recommendation. ... General or conclusory objections are insufficient to trigger de novo review ... 'New claims or arguments, presented for the first time in the objections to an R&R, will not be reviewed.'”
In United States v. Jackson and Graham, she denied post-conviction Rule 60 requests that substantively repeated Section 2255 attacks because the defendants lacked the required appellate authorization for successive motions.
“A defendant may not bypass the authorization requirement of § 2255 by purporting to invoke some other procedure.”
Cautions
In Edner, she denied postjudgment Rule 59(e) relief where the plaintiff repeated or reframed points previously raised and supplied no newly discovered evidence.
“He impermissibly repeats prior arguments or seeks to reargue his points more fully.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff Brock Fredin’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 80] is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff Brock Fredin’s letter request for leave to file a third amended complaint [Doc. No. 89] is DENIED;”
“Defendant Referee Elizabeth Clysdale’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 38], as applied to the now operative Second Amended Complaint, is GRANTED, and all claims against Referee Clysdale are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;”
“Defendants Grace Elizabeth Miller, Catherine Marie Schaefer, and Lindsey Middlecamp’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 44], as applied to the now operative Second Amended Complaint, is GRANTED, and all claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and”
“Defendant Sergeant David E. McCabe’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 49], as applied to the now operative Second Amended Complaint, is GRANTED, as follows: a. Summary judgment is awarded on the search warrant-based retaliation claim in Count 1 of the SAC and on the Franks-based Fourth Amendment claim in Count 2 of the SAC; and b. All remaining claims against Sergeant McCabe are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant John H. Pribyl's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 283] is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant John H. Pribyl are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Defendant Michael Fuhrman's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 296] is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Michael Fuhrman are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Defendant Janey Nelson's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 344] is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Janey Nelson are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Defendant Sonia Mosch's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 357] is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Sonia Mosch are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Plaintiff Harley Dean Meyer's Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Motion to Defendant Mosch's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 376] is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff Harley Dean Meyer's Motion for Order to Show Cause [Doc. No. 367] is DENIED;”
“Hrebal's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 77] is GRANTED. The Court accordingly enters partial summary judgment in Hrebal's favor, in the manner explained herein.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 9] is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 11] is GRANTED.”
“PRMI's motion for a jury trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b). For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 21] is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 23] is GRANTED; and ... This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS.”
“Defendant's motion for relief under Rule 60(b) [Doc. No. 207] is GRANTED IN PART (insofar as it requests that the Band be relieved of any further compliance with its obligations under the 1994 Agreements) and DENIED IN PART (insofar as it requests retroactive relief, including relief from payments due the City for the years 2009-2011 ...)”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 47] is GRANTED, consistent with this Order.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 87] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as detailed herein.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 152] is DENIED;”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony [Doc. No. 158] is DENIED; and”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability [Doc. No. 165] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 16] is DENIED;”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 20] is GRANTED.”
“The ‘PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FROM JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCESS per Fed. R. Cr. P. 60(b)(4)’ [Doc. No. 839] filed by Ronald Jermaine Jackson is DENIED.”
“The ‘PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT PER RULE 60(b)(b)’ filed by Ronald Jermaine Jackson [Doc. No. 854] is DENIED.”
“The ‘PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT PER RULE 60(b)(b)’ [Doc. No. 856] filed by Ronald Jermaine Jackson is DENIED.”
“The ‘PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT PER RULE 60(b)(b)’ [Doc. No. 857] filed by Ronald Jermaine Jackson is DENIED.”
“The ‘PRO SE MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255’ [Doc. No. 872] by Ronald Jermaine Jackson is DENIED.”
“The ‘PRO SE MOTION to Amend MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255’ [Doc. No. 875] filed by Ronald Jermaine Jackson is DENIED.”
“The ‘PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING’ [Doc. No. 876] filed by Ronald Jermaine Jackson is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“The ‘PRO SE AMENDED MOTION under 28 U.S.C. 255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence’ [Doc. No. 885] filed by Ronald Jermaine Jackson is DENIED.”
“The ‘PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING PER 28 U.S.C. 2255’ [Doc. No. 886] filed by Ronald Jermaine Jackson is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“The ‘PRO SE MOTION EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, ORDER OR PROCESS’ [Doc. No. 841] filed by William Charles Graham is DENIED.”
“The ‘PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT PER RULE 60(b)(b)’ [Doc. No. 853] filed by William Charles Graham is DENIED.”
“The ‘PRO SE MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255’ [Doc. No. 866] filed by William Charles Graham is DENIED.”
“The ‘PRO SE MOTION to Amend MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255’ [Doc. No. 869] filed by William Charles Graham is DENIED.”
“The ‘PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING’ [Doc. No. 870] filed by William Charles Graham is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“The ‘PRO SE AMENDED MOTION under 28 U.S.C. 255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence’ [Doc. No. 882] filed by William Charles Graham is DENIED.”
“The ‘PRO SE EXPEDITED REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING PER 28 U.S.C. 2255’ [Doc. No. 883] filed by William Charles Graham is DENIED AS MOOT.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 155 days (N = 15).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 260 days (N = 5).
- The January 2018 filing cohort includes consumer, ERISA, insurance, civil-rights, securities, and habeas matters.
- Fourteen selected cases have recorded termination dates.
- Bailey and Colesnic were separately examined, alongside the earlier Fredin and Evenstad files.
- Three of the 18 observed files have no termination date in the returned metadata; two of those have signed dispositive rulings.
- This bounded mix is not the judge’s overall caseload.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, not for Judge Nelson: 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 Nelson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Nelson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Nelson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace