Henry Edward Autrey
How Judge Autrey rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Autrey
Henry Edward Autrey is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Autrey received a commission on August 2, 2002.
Judge Autrey's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Autrey, 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
Submit informal matters in writing through CM/ECF.
“All informals shall be submitted in writing and filed in CM/ECF.”
Conferences
File the proposed joint scheduling plan at least 10 days before the Rule 16 conference.
“The JSP is to be filed with the court no later than 10 days prior to the scheduled Rule 16.”
Conferences
Unless otherwise ordered, the plaintiff initiates the Rule 16 planning meeting and files the joint scheduling plan.
“Unless otherwise ordered, the plaintiff is responsible for initiating the meeting and filing the JSP.”
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 Autrey decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Patterson v. Dayton Freight Lines, Inc., Autrey dismissed the plaintiff’s new race-based disparate-treatment and wage-discrimination claims because they were not reasonably related to his administrative charge of retaliation.
“Neither of these claims fall within what is reasonably related to retaliation complaining about discriminatory practices nor wage discrimination.”
In Dudley v. Precoat Metals, the court dismissed Title VII and ADA claims because the plaintiff had not filed a discrimination charge before suing.
“As Plaintiff failed to file a charge of discrimination, his claims”
Procedural preferences
In one 2010 case, the court granted a dismissal motion but allowed the plaintiffs three days to amend. When leave is granted on a short deadline, counsel must replead promptly.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the Complaint within three (3) days of the date this Order.”
In a discovery dispute, he denied the motion without prejudice because defense counsel had not certified conferral with opposing counsel.
“Defendant’s counsel has not certified he conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel to resolve the dispute. The Court therefore will deny the motion without prejudice.”
Cautions
In Overton v. Luebbers, the court held that § 2241 was the proper vehicle to challenge a parole board’s conditional-release decision. The petitioner instead attacked the constitutionality of convictions already challenged in an earlier § 2254 case; the court found it lacked jurisdiction over that attack and denied the § 2241 petition with prejudice.
“This Court has no jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the underlying criminal convictions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). As a result, petitioner's arguments are without merit, and the petition will be dismissed with prejudice.”
In a second suit over the same post office incident, the court dismissed claims against several defendants with prejudice because the earlier case had already resolved the same nucleus of facts. New legal theories did not reopen that dispute.
“the claims in the case at bar are based on the same nucleus of operative facts that was alleged in Gibson I.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 14], is granted in part and denied in part, without prejudice to refiling after development of the record herein.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration [#5] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [#1] is DENIED with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Guy Montgomery's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 25] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Motion Affidavit of Christopher J. Coyle [ECF No. 30] is DENIED subject to the limitations specified above.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the Complaint within three (3) days of the date this Order.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff James Mertens's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 2).”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Remand, [Doc. No, 12] and Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, [Doc. No. 25] are granted. IT IS FURHTER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri.”
“ORDER OF DISMISSAL pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(b). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.”
“No, 12] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, [Doc. No. 25] are granted.”
“district court without prepaying fees and costs is GRANTED. [Doc. 2]”
“counsel is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 4]”
“record is DENIED. [Doc. 12]”
“No. 7] is GRANTED.”
“[ECF No. 9] is DENIED without prejudice.”
“for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 10] is DENIED as moot.”
“No. 6] is DENIED without prejudice.”
“REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) and Sentence”
“The Court therefore will deny the motion without prejudice.”
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 4 | 11 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 14 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 11 |
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 Autrey: 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 Autrey with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Autrey, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Autrey's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace