Sarah Elizabeth Martin Pitlyk
How Judge Pitlyk rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pitlyk
Sarah Elizabeth Pitlyk is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Pitlyk received a commission on December 5, 2019.
Judge Pitlyk's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pitlyk, 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
Filing
Provide courtesy copies for filings of at least 20 pages or exhibits of at least 10 pages.
“For filings with twenty (20) or more pages total or ten (10) or more pages of exhibits, parties must provide courtesy copies to chambers.”
Motions
For an extension request, confer with all parties and state their positions in the motion.
“A party seeking an extension should confer with all other parties and note their positions in the body of the motion.”
Discovery
Limit the joint motion requesting a discovery conference to three pages, summarizing both positions and resolution efforts.
“The motion must concisely summarize the parties’ positions on the issue(s) in dispute and their efforts to achieve a resolution in no more than three (3) pages.”
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 Pitlyk 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. Ralph, Pitlyk adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and denied a motion to dismiss a felon-in-possession indictment, holding that Eighth Circuit precedent foreclosed Ralph's Second Amendment challenge.
“As conceded by defense counsel and explained by Judge Cohen, Defendant’s argument is foreclosed by the Eighth Circuit’s holding in United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024)”
Procedural preferences
In Starks v. The Standard Fire Insurance Company, Pitlyk denied leave to add the uninsured motorist as a defendant. She found that he was not indispensable and that the factors governing diversity-destroying joinder weighed against amendment.
“Thus, with due consideration of the Bailey factors, the Court concludes that it should not grant leave to amend.”
In Dutcher’s case, Judge Pitlyk denied renewed fee-free filing under the PLRA three-strikes rule and dismissed without prejudice. His original complaint alleged no imminent physical danger, and his later medical allegations lacked a nexus to that complaint and did not establish the required ongoing danger.
“His motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied under the three-strike rule. Because he has stated that he is unable to pay the $405 filing fee, his case will be dismissed without prejudice.”
In one removed case, the court remanded after the removing defendant raised fraudulent joinder only after the deadline for adding removal grounds.
“Because the 30-day removal period set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) had passed, the argument was untimely.”
In McNeal v. Calvin, Pitlyk denied reconsideration of a dismissal order because the plaintiff identified no manifest error, new evidence, or other basis for relief.
“Because Plaintiff’s motion fails to point to any manifest error of law or fact, identify any newly discovered evidence, or present any other reason justifying relief, it is denied.”
Cautions
A motion for reconsideration is narrow — to correct manifest error or present newly discovered evidence — not a chance to reargue the merits. Repeating an argument is itself a ground to deny.
“A motion for reconsideration ‘is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits.’”
A recusal request must identify facts that would cause an informed, reasonable observer to question impartiality; a litigant's objection to the president who appointed the judge is insufficient.
“Plaintiff’s argument that I am biased or prejudiced against him because I was appointed by President Trump is an insufficient basis for disqualification.”
In Hillmann, a property damage case, Pitlyk excluded the defense valuation expert after finding that the defendants had not shown his replacement cost less depreciation testimony would help the jury determine fair market value.
“But Defendants produce no statute, jury instruction, or case law suggesting that testimony about ‘replacement cost less depreciation’ will help the jury determine ‘fair market value’ as defined in MAI 16.02.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment, Doc. [61], is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Custodial Statements (Doc. [70]) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Sever Counts I, IV, V, VI, and VII from Counts II and III (Doc. [71]) is DENIED.”
“the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and will deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion of Involuntary Dismissal.”
“Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file an amended complaint. Docs. [23], [25]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motions.”
“the Court denies Power’s motion for summary judgment, grants in part and denies in part Cardinals’ motion for summary judgment, and denies the joint motions for leave to file under seal.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.”
“the Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration and grants the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Compel, the Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply, and the Motion to Strike are denied.”
“This matter is before the Court on Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc’s (‘Toyota’) Motion to Dismiss. Doc. [17]. The motion is fully briefed. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.”
“On review of the application and financial information provided therein, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and waives the filing fee in this matter.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal, Doc. [7], is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [3], is DENIED without prejudice.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Doc. [2], is DENIED 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 | 8 |
| 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 8 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 15 | 12 |
| Mar 2025 | 47 | 12 |
| Sep 2024 | 38 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 24 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 10 |
| Mar 2023 | 10 | 9 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 9 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 9 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 8 | 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.
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 Pitlyk: 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 Pitlyk with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pitlyk, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pitlyk's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace