Brian C. Wimes
How Judge Wimes rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wimes
Brian Curtis Wimes serves as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. President Barack Obama appointed him to both the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, and he received his commissions on April 30, 2012. Before joining the federal bench, he served as a Jackson County Circuit Court judge.
Judge Wimes's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wimes, 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
Motions
The trial date, final pretrial conference, and dispositive motion deadline require extraordinary circumstances and good cause to change.
“the trial date, final pretrial conference date, and dispositive motion deadline shall not be modified, except under extraordinary circumstances and for good cause shown”
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 Wimes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdiction challenge he requires more than a bare invocation of federal statutes: 'mere citations to federal statutes' do not create federal-question jurisdiction, and a plaintiff facing a factual challenge must prove subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance. Pro se filings are read under 'less stringent standards' but that liberality does not supply a missing jurisdictional basis.
“Mere citations to federal statutes however are insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.”
In United States v. Rosas, Wimes adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and denied a motion to dismiss an escape indictment. He held that the indictment's sufficiency had to be assessed on its face, leaving arguments about the strength of the evidence for trial.
“when reviewing a motion to dismiss based on an indictment’s sufficiency, a court is limited to the face of the indictment and may not consider arguments related to sufficiency of the evidence.”
Procedural preferences
In Rosas’s criminal case, Judge Wimes reviewed the record and applicable law after objections, adopted Judge Gaddy’s recommendation, and denied a motion to dismiss the indictment because the challenge to its sufficiency could not rely on evidence beyond its face.
“The Court, after an independent review of the record and the applicable law, adopts the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation.”
He deferred a pretrial statute of limitations challenge to an indictment count when deciding which limitations period applied would require findings about the alleged conduct. The dismissal motion was denied without prejudice as premature, leaving the issue open for a later stage.
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count 2 is denied without prejudice as premature.”
Cautions
In Mack’s habeas case, Judge Wimes dismissed the petition as untimely by 66 days. Mack had forgone review in Missouri’s highest court, so the 90-day certiorari period did not extend the deadline, and his miscalculation did not justify equitable tolling.
“Petitioner’s miscalculation of the limitations period does not constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ for purposes of equitable tolling.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. #10) is GRANTED and the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“ORDERED Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #15) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”
“this case is dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and (2)”
“a certificate of appealability is denied.”
“ORDERED Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. #96) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Summary judgment is GRANTED on Counts II and IV to the extent it is a Federal Inverse Condemnation Claim, and DENIED on Counts I, III, IV to the extent it is a Missouri Inverse Condemnation Claim, and Count V.”
“ORDERED the United States’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. #8) is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. #13 & #15) are DENIED.”
“ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Suggestions in Support (Doc. #7) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #41) is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Claims Against All Defendants, or in the Alternative, Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss All Claims Against All Individual Defendants (Doc. #11) is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED Plaintiff’s Application for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #22) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment by Default by the Court (Doc. #6) is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion for default (Doc. #12) is GRANTED against Defendant Fitzgerald and DENIED against all other Defendants for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendations.”
“ORDERED that DOC Defendants motion for extension of time to file an answer is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendations.”
“ORDERED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #41), Plaintiffs’ motion for civil contempt (Doc. #27) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay and for Additional Relief (Doc. #40) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“ORDERED Defendants’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #42) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 6 | 7 |
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 Western District of Missouri, not for Judge Wimes: 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 | 1,429 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 520 | 5.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 876 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 19 | 49.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 22.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,429 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,461 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,502 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,738 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,341 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,312 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,485 | 7 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 Wimes with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wimes, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wimes's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace