Jean Constance Hamilton
How Judge Hamilton rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Hamilton no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Hamilton
Jean Constance Hamilton served on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, she received her commission on October 1, 1990. She took senior status on July 1, 2013, and inactive senior status in December 2022.
How Judge Hamilton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Dreith v. City of St. Louis, factual disputes about the protester’s protected activity and the officer’s reason for using pepper spray precluded summary judgment and qualified immunity on her First Amendment retaliation claim. The court granted the officer qualified immunity on the separate Fourth Amendment claim because a seizure was not clearly established on those facts.
“the Court finds genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to whether Plaintiff was engaged in protected activity at the time of the incident, and whether Defendant’s Boyher’s motive in spraying Plaintiff was retaliation for said behavior.”
A Monell municipal-liability claim survives summary judgment where the plaintiff marshals concrete evidence of a pattern plus a failure to retrain after a prior settlement (here, the City's chemical-munitions practices after the Templeton settlement).
“Plaintiff presents evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude Defendant City had notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by officers with respect to the deployment of chemical munitions in violation of citizens' First Amendment rights.”
Procedural preferences
In Jones v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Hamilton granted dismissal of an ERISA complaint that did not specify each defendant’s alleged duties and failures, but gave the plaintiff until August 10, 2015, to file an amended complaint with those details.
“grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, but again will grant Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint in which she specifies the alleged duties and failures of each Defendant.”
Cautions
In Jones v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, the court dismissed an ERISA complaint because the plaintiff did not identify each defendant’s role or explain the sequence leading to the alleged denial of benefits. It allowed her to amend the pleading to supply those details.
“Plaintiff does not properly allege the specific roles and functions undertaken by each Defendant, nor does she delineate the sequence of events leading to the allegedly improper denial of benefits. Without such basic information, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient notice to Defendants of the allegations against them”
In Wagner v. RJM Acquisitions, LLC, Hamilton denied both parties’ summary-judgment motions because factual disputes remained over whether the alleged FDCPA violation was intentional, resulted from a bona fide error, and could have been avoided by the defendant’s procedures.
“the Court finds fact questions remain with respect to whether the alleged violation was intentional, whether it resulted from a bona fide error, and whether RJM had in place procedures reasonably adapted to avoid the alleged error at issue here.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with the foregoing.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' Claims are DISMISSED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Oral Argument (Doc. No. 34) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 106 days (N = 11).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 63 days (N = 3).
Senior District Judge: still drawing new civil cases through at least 2022. Recent (2021-2022) assignments skew toward short-lived matters, debt-collection/ADA Title III, banking, in-rem civil forfeitures, and trademark, terminating in roughly 2-7 months. Her contested merits work (ERISA, Section 1983, FDCPA) sits in the older, longer-running dockets.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Hamilton was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2023.
| 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 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 8 | 9 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 7 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 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.
A historical record
Judge Hamilton no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.