Audrey G. Fleissig
How Judge Fleissig rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Fleissig
Audrey Goldstein Fleissig is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Fleissig received a commission on June 9, 2010. Judge Fleissig assumed senior status on April 14, 2023.
Judge Fleissig's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Fleissig, 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
Motions
For an agreed minor deadline change, file a written extension motion stating that opposing counsel consents.
“Most minor, agreed deadline changes can be handled in writing, by filing a motion to extend the deadline and stating that opposing counsel consents.”
Discovery
Confer with opposing counsel before a discovery motion and certify the effort in the motion.
“Before filing any discovery-related motion, you must confer with opposing counsel and attempt to resolve the dispute, and in accordance with the relevant local rule, your motion must contain a certification that you have done so.”
Conferences
Out-of-town counsel seeking to join a Rule 16 conference by phone must notify chambers at least one business day beforehand.
“town counsel may arrange to participate by conference call, but must notify chambers with contact information at least one business day prior to the scheduled 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).
How Judge Fleissig decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Morgan-Tyra v. City of St. Louis, plaintiffs identified unresolved facts relevant to a qualified-immunity summary-judgment motion, including whether officers announced their presence and what the shooting officer could see. The court allowed 60 days of discovery under Rule 56(d) and denied summary judgment without prejudice to renewal after discovery.
“Upon careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the authorities cited therein, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing to warrant at least a limited time for additional discovery under Rule 56(d).”
Procedural preferences
In one case with a summary-judgment motion pending, the court denied voluntary dismissal without prejudice because the plaintiff offered no explanation for leaving the case. The order left open dismissal with prejudice.
“given the history of the litigation and the fact that Plaintiff has not presented any explanation - much less a sufficient explanation - for its desire to dismiss the case, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion for dismissal without prejudice should be denied.”
In Jenkins v. Seifert, Fleissig denied the defendant's Rule 54(b) reconsideration motion after finding that her repeated standing and probate-exception arguments did not warrant revisiting the prior order; she separately considered but rejected an Article III standing challenge.
“A motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b), however, may not serve as a vehicle to identify facts or raise legal arguments which could have been, but were not, raised or adduced during the pendency of the motion of which reconsideration was sought.”
In another collective action, the court enforced signed class and collective waivers against two named plaintiffs, while declining to strike a third plaintiff’s collective allegations on the existing record.
“Joseph L. Smith and Erick Williams entered into valid and enforceable class and collective action waivers with Defendants, and the terms of the waivers are not unconscionable.”
Cautions
Pro se status does not excuse non-compliance with the rules: financial hardship and absence did not establish excusable neglect for a years-long failure to serve defendants.
“Nor does Plaintiff’s pro se status excuse his failure to serve the Defendants who were dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve them.”
In Pointer v. City of St. Louis, the court denied the City’s Rule 11 sanctions motion. The earlier filing restriction had been vacated, a later order had only announced an intent to impose one, and no formal injunction barred Pointer’s suit; his complaint also had survived initial screening.
“upon careful review, the Court concludes that there exists no formal order barring Plaintiff from filing lawsuits in this district.”
In one wage-and-hour case, the court decertified an FLSA collective when the opt-in workers’ experiences did not establish a uniform policy that would prove a violation for each member. The named plaintiff’s claim remained pending.
“On the record before the Court, there is no basis to find a uniform policy, proof of which would prove an FLSA violation as to each member of the collective.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Harriman Oil Co.’s motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice is DENIED. (Doc. No. 58.) Plaintiff remains free to move for dismissal of the case with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Charles Ryan Glover’s motion (ECF No. 50) for reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated December 8, 2016, is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within seven (7) days of this Order.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis’ motion for sanctions is DENIED. ECF No. 22.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Charles Pointer’s pro se motion to ‘stop Defendant from using the [en banc] order to impose sanctions against him’ is DENIED AS MOOT. ECF No. 19.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment Creditor SMS Financial P, LLC’s Motion for Revival of Judgment is GRANTED. Doc. No. 53.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deny or Defer Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and to Allow Discovery is GRANTED in part, as set forth above. ECF No. 67.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice. ECF No. 62.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and Request for Form is GRANTED. ECF No. 21. Petitioner’s notice of appeal shall be due no later than June 18, 2025.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to strike [ECF No. 8] is GRANTED, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 7] is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint is GRANTED. ECF No. 32.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED and the filing fee waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 3] is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions [ECF Nos. 22 & 23] are DENIED.”
“The government has met its burden to establish that it is entitled to forfeiture of the Subject Property listed in its Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture. (Doc. No. 158). The government is also entitled to a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $12,922,648.25.”
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
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 Eastern District of Missouri, not for Judge Fleissig: 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 | 1,561 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 502 | 4.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,031 | 7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 16 | 15.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 31.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,561 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,525 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,323 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,466 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,424 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,950 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,913 | 2.2 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 Fleissig with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Fleissig, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Fleissig's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace