John M. Bodenhausen
How Judge Bodenhausen rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bodenhausen
John M. Bodenhausen is a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. He joined the court in April 2015. He earned a law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law after studying electrical engineering at the University of Missouri and Missouri University of Science and Technology.
Judge Bodenhausen's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bodenhausen, 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
Discovery
Before moving to compel, schedule a telephone conference and send a joint summary of the issues of no more than one page.
“Before a motion to compel is filed, the parties are required to schedule a telephone conference with the Court and to send the Court a joint summary, no longer than one page, of the issues on which the parties seek the Court’s guidance.”
Discovery
A motion to compel filed before scheduling the court conference is denied without prejudice.
“Any motions filed before a telephone conference is scheduled will be denied without prejudice.”
Trial
File the proposed final pretrial order at least 14 days before trial.
“The proposed Final Pretrial Order shall be filed no later than 14 days prior to trial.”
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 Bodenhausen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Xiang, Bodenhausen recommended denying suppression of electronic-device evidence from a border search, concluding that the warrant rule for searches incident to arrest in Riley did not govern this border search. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
“recommending that the Court deny the motion to suppress because the searches were performed within the border search exception to the warrant requirement.”
In United States v. Kjar, Magistrate Judge Bodenhausen recommended denying dismissal of an indictment for a false statement to a financial institution. District Judge Autrey adopted the recommendation, explaining that the indictment needed the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1014, not an additional CARES Act violation.
“An indictment is legally sufficient on its face if it contains all of the essential elements of the offense charged, fairly informs the defendant of the charges against which he must defend, and alleges sufficient information to allow a defendant to plead a conviction or acquittal as a bar to a subsequent prosecution.”
In United States v. White, Bodenhausen recommended denying an omnibus indictment-dismissal motion after separately rejecting the defendant’s multiplicity, Speedy Trial Act, forfeiture, and Second Amendment grounds.
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY White's motion to dismiss, as supplemented [ECF Nos. 38, 51].”
In an insurance coverage dispute, the judge read the policy exclusions against the allegations in the underlying state complaint and entered judgment on the pleadings for the insurer.
“In light of the plain language of the policies at issue and the allegations contained in Davis’ state court complaint, State Farm does not owe a duty to defend or indemnify Dougherty.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Gaten, Bodenhausen recommended denying motions to suppress evidence and dismiss counts. After the defendant filed objections without a countervailing rationale, District Judge Ross found the recommendation supported by the evidence and adopted it.
“Defendant Gaten filed objections to the Report and Recommendation ... summarily stating that he objects to the conclusions drawn by Magistrate Judge Bodenhausen, but fails to provide any countervailing rationale for his position.”
In United States v. Nettles, Bodenhausen recommended denying suppression after an evidentiary hearing on a traffic stop. The district judge adopted his finding that the officer’s actions did not improperly exceed the stop’s scope.
“correctly concluded that the actions by Officer Smith did not improperly exceed the scope of the traffic stop.”
Cautions
In United States v. Stewart, Bodenhausen recommended granting in part the motion to suppress statements and denying the motion to suppress physical evidence; the district judge adopted that recommendation.
“the Motion to Suppress Statements [26] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Motion to Suppress Statements [26] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence is DENIED.”
“the Motion to Suppress Statements and Evidence [135] is DENIED.”
“the Amended Motion to Dismiss Indictment/Counts [138] is DENIED.”
“the Motions to Dismiss Indictments/Counts [87 and 89] are DENIED.”
“issued his Report and Recommendation on May 16, 2024, recommending that the undersigned grant the motion in part and deny it in part.”
“In his October 15, 2024 Report and Recommendation, Judge Bodenhausen recommended Defendant's Motion be denied.”
“the Motions to Suppress Evidence and Statements [680] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, [Doc. No. 42] is denied.”
“Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. No. 57] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY White's motion to dismiss, as supplemented [ECF Nos. 38, 51].”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and this cause is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration consistent with this Memorandum and Order.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Stay (Doc. 9) is GRANTED, the alternative Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is DENIED without prejudice, and Motion to Supplement the Record (Doc. 33) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 543 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 94 days (N = 4).
- Not systematically enumerated.
- The 9 dockets surfaced span consent civil matters (insurance, other statutory, civil rights), Social Security appeals, and a prisoner civil-rights matter, consistent with a magistrate judge's consent-and-Social-Security docket.
- Observed nature of suit: Social Security disability appeals (Niemann, Daniel), insurance (Halpern), other statutory (Roeslein), civil rights (Bulfin), and prisoner civil rights (Smalley v. Davis).
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Bodenhausen: 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 Bodenhausen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bodenhausen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bodenhausen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace