Shirley Padmore Mensah
How Judge Mensah rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mensah
Shirley Padmore Mensah is a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. She joined the court in September 2012 after practicing civil litigation at Husch Blackwell in St. Louis. She earned her law degree from Washington University School of Law in 1995.
Judge Mensah's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Mensah, 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
Follow both the local rule and the case management order’s discovery conference procedure before filing a discovery motion.
“Before filing any motion relating to discovery or disclosure, the parties must comply with both (1) the requirements set forth in Local Rule 3.04, and (2) the applicable discovery conference procedure set forth in the Case Management Order.”
Discovery
Email and letters alone do not satisfy the discovery meet-and-confer requirement.
“Emails and letters do not satisfy this requirement.”
Conferences
Lead counsel must attend the Rule 16 conference absent truly exceptional circumstances.
“Absent truly exceptional circumstances, lead counsel must appear for the Rule 16 conference.”
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 Mensah decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a minor claimant’s Social Security appeal, Judge Mensah agreed with both parties that sentence-four remand was warranted so the ALJ could reconsider teacher questionnaires and reevaluate the child’s functional limitations under the applicable rules.
“the undersigned agrees with the parties that this case should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), so that the ALJ can reconsider the teacher questionnaires at issue and reevaluate Plaintiff's limitations in a manner that is consistent with the relevant rules and regulations.”
In Jones’s criminal case, Judge Mensah recommended denying suppression because he did not establish a personal expectation of privacy in the searched premises; the district judge adopted that recommendation and rejected his dependent challenge to statements.
“Judge Mensah found that Defendant Jones lacks standing to challenge the search warrant because he failed to establish he personally had an expectation of privacy in the place searched.”
In a criminal source-disclosure dispute, she distinguished a source who dealt directly with the defendant from two others whose potential value to the defense was speculative. She recommended disclosure of the direct participant’s identity before trial.
“of the three confidential sources referenced in the search warrant affidavit, only CS-3 directly interacted with the Defendant.”
Procedural preferences
In the reviewed suppression recommendation, the district judge adopted her findings over objections that repeated the earlier motion without identifying a specific error.
“Defendant does not challenge these findings, rather, he reargues his motion. ... Her conclusions of law are based on sound analysis of the law as applied to the facts of this case.”
In Lee’s case, Judge Mensah denied a motion to exclude a treating physician’s expert testimony after finding the deficient Rule 26 report harmless in the circumstances. She ordered a supplemental report, allowed time for another deposition, and set briefing on possible fees and costs.
“For all of the above reasons, Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Dr. Matthew Gornet (Doc. 25) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within twenty-one (21) days ... supplement her Rule 26 disclosures and provide a supplemental expert report from Dr. Gornet that fully complies with Rule 26(a)(2)(B).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner's Motion to Reverse and Remand (Doc. 26) be GRANTED and that this case be REVERSED and REMANDED for reconsideration and further proceedings consistent with the Commissioner's motion to reverse and remand.”
“In her report, Magistrate Judge Mensah recommends that the Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner, and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“After a hearing and consideration, Magistrate Judge Mensah recommends the Court deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Suppress [30] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jones' Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized and Statements Made During Execution of Search Warrant, [Doc. No. 107], is denied.”
“At this stage of the proceedings, the Court agrees with Judge Mensah that the Motion to Sever is not yet ripe for determination. ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Jones’ Motion to Severe, [Doc. No. 106], is denied without prejudice to refiling at trial if the Government intends to offer unredacted statements of a co-defendant which names or identifies Defendant Jones.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jones' Motion to Produce Identity of a Confidential Source, [Doc. No. 108], is denied as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count I based on qualified immunity is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count II is GRANTED. Count II is DISMISSED, without prejudice. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III is GRANTED. Count III is DISMISSED, with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Country Mutual's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) is GRANTED. The Court will issue a separate judgment consistent with this Memorandum and Order.”
“For all of the above reasons, Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Dr. Matthew Gornet (Doc. 25) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within twenty-one (21) days ... supplement her Rule 26 disclosures and provide a supplemental expert report from Dr. Gornet that fully complies with Rule 26(a)(2)(B).”
“On October 8, 2025, Judge Mensah filed her Report and Recommendation, Doc. [41], recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, Doc. [38], should be denied. ... The undersigned therefore adopts and sustains Judge Mensah's Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denies the Motion to Dismiss Indictment.”
“Defendant Samuel Thomas's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment or, in the Alternative, for a Bill of Particulars (Doc. 53) ... [is] DENIED.”
“Defendant Samuel Thomas's ... Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III of the Indictment (Doc. 54) ... [is] DENIED.”
“Defendant Samuel Thomas's ... Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and Statements (Doc. 55) [is] DENIED.”
“She entered a Report and Recommendation on November 7, 2018, recommending that defendant's Motion to Suppress electronic Surveillance Evidence and his Motion to Suppress Evidence be denied. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Suppress Electronic Surveillance Evidence and his Motion to Suppress Evidence [317, 318] are denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Suppress Electronic Surveillance Evidence and his Motion to Suppress Evidence [317, 318] are denied.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Amie Sparks’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 46) is DENIED, without prejudice to refiling”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition (Doc. 11), as it relates to the claims against Defendant Amie Sparks only, is GRANTED. Counts I and III are DISMISSED with prejudice, and Count II is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence from Wiretaps (ECF No. 926) be DENIED.”
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 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Mensah: 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 Mensah with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mensah, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mensah's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace