Cristian M. Stevens
How Judge Stevens rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Stevens
Cristian Matthew Stevens is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Stevens received a commission on July 23, 2025.
Judge Stevens's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Stevens, 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
Use clear record citations with docket entry numbers where possible.
“Citations to the record must be consistent, easily understood, and—whenever possible—include a CM/ECF docket entry number.”
Motions
For an extension request, confer with the other parties and state their positions in the motion.
“A party seeking an extension of time should confer with all other parties and note their positions in the body of the motion.”
Conferences
Lead counsel must attend the Rule 16 conference in person absent truly exceptional circumstances.
“Absent truly exceptional circumstances, lead counsel must appear in person for the Rule 16 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 Stevens decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Holland v. City of Sikeston, the court considered body-camera videos on a motion to dismiss because the footage was embraced by the excessive-force pleadings. It rejected the plaintiffs’ account where the videos blatantly contradicted it.
“This Court need not accept ‘the plaintiff’s version of the facts if they are blatantly contradicted by video evidence.’”
In Holland v. City of Sikeston, Stevens dismissed an excessive-force claim after finding that the video showed the decedent quickly moved a gun and the officer could reasonably believe it was pointed toward the officers before he fired.
“the dispositive issue here is not what happened as Officer Simmerman opened fire or the instant after he opened fire, but what happened before he made the split-second decision to open fire.”
Procedural preferences
In Holland v. City of Sikeston, the plaintiffs suggested discovery might reveal facts about the officers’ conduct. The court held that speculation about facts neither alleged nor reasonably inferable from the pleadings could not save the complaint from dismissal.
“mere speculation that certain facts might be established through discovery—when those facts are not alleged or reasonably inferable from the pleadings—will not save a plaintiff’s complaint from a motion to dismiss.”
In Davidson v. Garcia, the plaintiff did not respond to the officers’ summary-judgment motion or statement of material facts. The court treated facts supported by the record as admitted under the local rule after independently checking the cited evidence.
“Material facts not properly contested are accepted as true for purposes of summary judgment.”
In one website-accessibility default case, Stevens denied default judgment after checking whether the uncontested allegations stated a legal claim. A clerk’s entry of default did not itself establish entitlement to relief.
“the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action”
Cautions
In Phillips v. United States, Stevens denied a self-represented plaintiff's postjudgment reconsideration motion after finding no manifest error, new evidence, fraud, or exceptional circumstances warranting relief under Rules 59(e) or 60(b).
“Such motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments that could have been presented prior to judgment.”
In United States v. Bill, Stevens denied the defendant’s request to move the trial several weeks earlier than the date both parties had proposed, finding that the change would reduce the time needed for effective preparation.
“the Court set the trial for the first date mutually agreed upon and proposed by the parties: Monday, March 30, 2026.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the private Defendants’ motion is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to Count I and GRANTED as to Count II. Count II of Plaintiffs’ petition against Defendants KeenMac and SEMO Cardinal is DISMISSED.”
“This Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims.”
“Because the Court grants summary judgment to these defendants on all claims, this motion is DENIED as moot.”
“For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 3] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 12] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 14] is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Out of Time [ECF No. 15] is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Advance the Trial Date (Doc. 291), is DENIED.”
“Based on this Court’s March 26, 2026, Memorandum and Order, (Doc. 39), Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint, and Plaintiff’s request in his Motion for Reconsideration that the Court dismiss the case with prejudice, (Doc. 45), the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 4] is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Budrovich Indoor Training I, LLC’s, Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff West Bend Mutual Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, (Doc. 14), is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 190.5 days (N = 18).
His current docket is dominated by 2026-filed matters (civil-rights / Section 1983, prisoner and habeas petitions, employment, ERISA, insurance, and a steady criminal docket), most still pending. The 10 grounded dockets skew toward Section 1983 prisoner and excessive-force suits and removed civil disputes (ERISA, land-use, consumer), consistent with the written-order record's early skew.
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 | 4 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
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 Stevens: 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 Stevens with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Stevens, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Stevens's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace