Rodney H. Holmes
How Judge Holmes rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Holmes
Rodney H. Holmes is a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. He joined the court in February 2023. He earned his law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law in 1997.
Judge Holmes's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Holmes, 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
If a discovery dispute remains, file a joint memorandum requesting a conference before motion briefing.
“If the parties are unable to reach an agreement without court intervention, they must file a joint memorandum requesting a conference.”
Discovery
Keep that joint discovery memorandum to three pages and state prior efforts and disputed issues.
“The memorandum must be filed jointly; must specify the parties’ previous attempts to resolve; must stipulate (in bullet points) the issues in dispute; and must not exceed three pages in length.”
Conferences
Request a scheduling or status conference by motion through CM/ECF.
“Counsel may request a scheduling or status conference when the need arises by filing a motion using CM-ECF.”
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 Holmes 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. Ransom, Magistrate Judge Holmes recommended denying suppression of statements from a voluntary meeting with DEA agents. The district court adopted the recommendation after finding Ransom chose the meeting place, was told he was not under arrest, and drove away afterward.
“All six factors weigh in favor of Ransom not being in custody. ... No evidence suggests that a custodial interrogation took place or that agents had any obligation to read Ransom Miranda rights.”
In United States v. Simpson, Holmes recommended rejecting a challenge to the supervised-release statute. The defendant faced no mandatory minimum under § 3583(k), and Holmes found his broader reading of Haymond foreclosed by Eighth Circuit decisions.
“Mr. Simpson’s argument is without merit. Here, Mr. Simpson does not face a mandatory minimum sentence, nor has he been sentenced under 3583(k). The Eighth Circuit has denied this argument in multiple cases.”
Procedural preferences
In Alexander v. Department of the Army, Holmes construed a self-represented plaintiff’s amended complaint as seeking judicial review of an Army board decision under the Administrative Procedure Act. He dismissed claims and defendants outside that review while allowing the agency-review claim to proceed.
“Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is not the model of a clear legal pleading, which is often the case when a plaintiff proceeds pro se. ... the Court construes Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint to bring a claim for judicial review of an agency decision pursuant to the APA.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as detailed above. [ECF No. 34.]”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Kenneth Robert Simpson's Motion to Dismiss the Petition to Revoke his Supervised Release (ECF No. 226); be DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendant Kenneth Robert Simpson's Motion to Strike Prior Conviction (ECF No. 224); and Motion to Dismiss for Selective Prosecution (ECF No. 233) be DENIED.”
“Therefore, the Court overrules Ransom's objections, adopts the magistrate judge's conclusion, and denies Ransom's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements.”
“Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge's conclusion and denies Ransom's Motion to Produce Early Jencks Act Material.”
“Additionally, the Court denies Ransom's [71] Motion to Produce the Identity of the Confidential Source as moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Gwin's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and Statements and Request for a Franks Hearing (ECF No. 61) and Post-Hearing Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and Statements and Renewed Request for Franks Hearing (ECF No. 84) are DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence, or in the Alternative, Motion to Compel Disclosure, Doc. [61], is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts 2 and 3, Doc. [62], is GRANTED, Counts 2 and 3 are dismissed without prejudice”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts 12-15, Doc. [63], is DENIED”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress, Doc. [41], is DENIED.”
“IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, Doc. [42], is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend for Joinder of Parties [ECF No. 34] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s unopposed motion to reverse and remand (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in district court without prepayment of fees and costs (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for status of pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is DENIED as moot.”
“Amended Complaint with Prejudice is GRANTED. [ECF No. 64.]”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pending motions are DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 245 days (N = 1).
- Not systematically enumerated; magistrate commissioned 2023-02.
- Holmes-assigned dockets observed span a consent-jurisdiction civil APA case (Alexander v. Dept of the Army), a consent TCPA case (Samuels v. Dunklau Pharmacy Holdings, pending), and routine magistrate-duty criminal matters (mj sealed complaints, mc civil forfeiture such as US v. ARMSCOR handgun).
- His heavier criminal footprint is as the 636(b) referral magistrate issuing R&Rs on suppression/dismissal motions in cases assigned to the district judges (Clark, Sippel, Ross, etc.), captured in his published orders rather than as Holmes-assigned dockets.
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 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
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 Holmes: 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 Holmes with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Holmes, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Holmes's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace