Stephen Robert Clark Sr.
How Judge Clark rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Clark
Stephen Robert Clark, Sr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Clark received a commission on June 12, 2019.
Judge Clark's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Clark, 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
Attach a proposed order or judgment as a PDF to the associated filing and email an editable version to the paralegal.
“Any proposed order or proposed judgment must be filed electronically as a pdf attachment to the motion or memorandum to which it pertains. Additionally, the proposed order or judgment must be emailed to my paralegal, Chelsea Langeneckert, at [email protected], in a word processing format.”
Motions
State whether each party consents to or opposes every motion.
“All motions must indicate whether each party consents or objects to the moving party’s request.”
Discovery
Meet and confer before filing a discovery motion and certify that effort in the motion.
“Before filing any discovery-related motion, you must meet and confer with opposing counsel and attempt to resolve the dispute, and you must certify in your motion that you have done so.”
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 Clark decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hembrador v. PruGen, Clark found unsupported, conclusory statements insufficient to defeat the employer’s summary-judgment motion.
“Self-serving, conclusory statements without support are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.”
In Hembrador’s employment case, Judge Clark found that the summary-judgment record did not support sex discrimination: her sales were below average, a woman replaced her, the same individual hired and fired her, and she showed no evidence of discriminatory animus.
“the record reflects that Hembrador performed below average, PruGen replaced her with a woman, the same individual hired and fired her, and no evidence suggests that Pinto’s decision to terminate Hembrador stemmed from or was influenced by discriminatory animus.”
In a September 2026 election-map dispute, the court found emergency relief favored continuity between the map used for the primary and the one used for the general election, citing likely voter confusion from a switch.
“Issuing a TRO here would preserve, rather than disturb, the election rules that candidates, election officials, and voters have relied on.”
In P. v. Anthem, the court let an as-applied Mental Health Parity Act claim proceed where facts about the insurer’s comparator practices lay with the defendants; this is a pleading-stage ruling in that case.
“certain facts necessary to state a plausible claim ‘tend systemically to be in the sole possession of defendants.’”
Procedural preferences
In SM-T.E.H. Realty, after an amended complaint removed all federal claims from the case, Judge Clark declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Missouri claims and remanded to state court on the court’s own motion.
“All federal questions have been dismissed from this case, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the Court remands this matter to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County.”
In Tharp-Petro v. America’s Car-Mart, the removing defendant characterized a state contract petition as a federal debt-collection claim. The court examined the petition itself, found no federal question, and remanded the case to state court on its own motion.
“Because the petition fails to present a federal question, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and, on that basis, sua sponte remands this case back to the Circuit Court of Franklin County.”
In the same election litigation, the court declined to bar a pending hearing in Missouri’s highest court, citing respect for state-court proceedings even while its own federal order remained in force.
“Under this country’s longstanding jurisprudential principles, that court and this Court accord each other comity.”
In Mensah v. Clemons-Abdullah, the parties stipulated to dismiss the only remaining federal claim. Clark then remanded the state assault and battery claims, finding no basis to keep them in federal court.
“The parties’ stipulated dismissal of Count II removed the ‘federal anchor’”
Cautions
In Brown v. Hampton, Clark denied a prisoner’s discovery sanctions request after finding that his motion did not show a timely effort to confer with opposing counsel as the court’s requirements directed.
“Brown’s motion doesn’t comply with these requirements.”
In Hembrador v. PruGen, Clark declined to consider a hostile-work-environment claim first raised in opposition to summary judgment because Hembrador had not sought to amend her complaint.
“Because Hembrador did not seek to amend her complaint to add this new claim, the Court need not consider this claim and grants summary judgment on this basis alone.”
In Tharp-Petro v. America’s Car-Mart, Clark held that the plaintiff’s later motions did not amend her state-court petition; their references to federal law therefore did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.
“statements raised for the first time in motions or briefs cannot amend those in petitions.”
In Inventory Sales, the employer’s tort claims against a former salesperson failed after it sought protections that it had never put into an agreement with him. The court granted defense summary judgment.
“But Inventory never had Leftridge sign any noncompete, nonsolicit, nondisclosure, or other agreement, and apparently never even proposed one.”
In Baker, the court imposed a monetary Rule 11 sanction after finding that settlement counsel filed a beneficiary declaration without a reasonable factual inquiry.
“monetary sanction of $12,250, an amount the Court finds sufficient to serve the purposes of Rule 11.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“In sum, the Court grants [44] Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts.”
“Accordingly, the Court denies Clark’s [5] motion for appointment of special master.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Stay of Court Proceedings [43] is DENIED as moot.”
“This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Carla Been’s Motion to Remand [25]. The Court denies the Motion.”
“While the logic of the rule in Smoot compels dismissal of the case, even applying the test set out in SnugglyCat, the Court concludes that it should grant Brotherhood’s motion.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes 28 U.S.C. § 2255 times bar this case and grants the United States’s motion to dismiss.”
“Accordingly, the Court sustains, adopts, and incorporates Judge Holmes’s [39] Report and Recommendation and denies Hampton’s [24] Motion to Dismiss.”
“This matter comes before the Court on [21] Defendant Arronda Williams’s Motion to Stay Proceedings, to Stay Discovery, and for a Protective Order. The Court denies the motion.”
“Now, Defendants move the Court to award them attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting their Motion to Dismiss. See doc. 34. The Court denies their motion for fees without prejudice.”
“The Court denies Burks's [5] Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, and dismisses the petition with prejudice. The Court does not issue a certificate of appealability.”
“the Court grants the Hamptons summary judgment on Brown’s two additional claims”
“denies Brown’s [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] motions.”
“Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ [2] motion for a temporary restraining order”
“The Court also denies Plaintiffs’ [3] Motion to Expedite as moot.”
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 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Clark: 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 Clark with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Clark, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Clark's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace