Matthew Thomas Schelp
How Judge Schelp rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Schelp
Matthew Thomas Schelp is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Schelp received a commission on August 4, 2020.
Judge Schelp's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Schelp's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Schelp decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mukhi v. United States, Schelp denied the Government’s motion to dismiss a tax-refund action under abstention principles but temporarily stayed the suit because an overlapping Tax Court case was pending.
“the Court denies the Government’s Motion, but issues a temporary stay of Plaintiff’s action in this Court.”
In a reviewed employment pleading dispute, the court rejected a demand that the complaint cite binding cases or plead a prima facie case; it required a plausible factual claim and denied dismissal.
“Plaintiff needed only to state a plausible claim for relief.”
Procedural preferences
In Chambers v. United States, the court enforced a plea agreement’s collateral-review waiver against a § 2255 motion. After reviewing the plea colloquy, it found the waiver knowing and voluntary, the claim within its scope, and no miscarriage of justice or reserved exception that would prevent enforcement.
“A defendant may waive the right to seek collateral relief under § 2255.”
In Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. v. Sapient Capital, the court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(2) after finding that the plaintiff had not established personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
“Because the Court concludes Plaintiff Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. has failed to establish this Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion and dismiss this action without prejudice.”
Cautions
In Williams v. Grimes, the court liberally construed a self-represented plaintiff’s civil-rights complaint but dismissed claims that lacked facts stating a cognizable cause of action. It explained that liberal construction did not supply missing facts.
“liberal construction does not mean that [the Court] supply missing facts to a plaintiff’s allegations or ignore a plaintiff’s failure to allege facts setting forth a cognizable claim.”
In one case, the judge dismissed a claim and struck an answer after a party intentionally discarded a computer shortly before a court-ordered inspection. Preserve requested electronic evidence and comply with inspection orders.
“computer, and its prejudice to Fisher, alone merit this severe sanction.”
In Human, the court denied a discovery motion after the movant skipped the required pre-motion conference. It also found the requested discovery mostly moot after the movant’s claim and answer were struck.
“movant must request a conference with the Court before moving for an order relating to discovery.”
In Lawrence v. Reed, Schelp denied relief from judgment after finding that counsel’s failure to monitor the case and respond on time lacked a persuasive explanation, despite limited prejudice and no bad faith.
“Plaintiff’s reason for delay outweighs them and therefore precludes such a finding.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Government’s Motion, but issues a temporary stay of Plaintiff’s action in this Court.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Counter-Defendants’ Motion.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Respondent’s Motion.”
“Because the Court concludes Plaintiff Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. has failed to establish this Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion and dismiss this action without prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Trevor Pulley and Defendant City of Dexter’s now-supplemented Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. [44], is GRANTED.”
“are GRANTED. The Court will enter an Order of Dismissal herewith.”
“GRANTED. An Order of Dismissal will be entered herewith dismissing this action without”
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 | 13 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 13 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 9 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 5 | 2 |
| 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 Schelp: 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 Schelp with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Schelp, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Schelp's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace