Jill A. Morris
How Judge Morris rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Morris
Jill A. Morris has served as a United States magistrate judge in the Western District of Missouri since 2020. She hears civil matters assigned with the parties’ consent and handles referred criminal pretrial matters.
Judge Morris's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Morris, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
A defendant seeking to waive personal appearance at a superseding-indictment arraignment must file the waiver at least two business days before the hearing.
“Defendant’s waiver shall be filed at least two business days before the scheduled arraignment to allow time for the Court to accept or decline the waiver”
Conferences
A waiver of the defendant’s appearance does not excuse counsel for either side from attending the arraignment.
“Counsel for Defendant and the Government must appear at the arraignment, which will be conducted in person or via video teleconference.”
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 Morris decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At the pleading stage, she accepted the complaint’s allegations and allowed the employment claims to proceed.
“Construing the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and accepting as true all facts alleged, Plaintiff has met the pleading requirement at this stage of the proceedings and adequately alleges each of her claims.”
Procedural preferences
Her partial dismissal distinguished claims tied to an administrative charge for which the plaintiff had not received a right-to-sue notice.
“ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in all other respects.”
For a Rule 35 examination outside the plaintiff’s home and forum district, she weighed prior comparable travel, the defendants’ preparation of their selected examiner, and full reimbursement of reasonable travel costs. She cautioned counsel that an outside examiner should not be presumed acceptable.
“As a starting point, the Court is generally disinclined to order an IME outside the district”
Cautions
On summary judgment, she required evidence supporting a genuine factual dispute on the sex-discrimination and retaliation claims.
“Because Plaintiff fails to establish actionable claims for sex discrimination or retaliation, no genuine dispute of material fact exists, and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and the applicable law, enter an order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 23).”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Defendant’s Fourth Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.”
“ORDERED that Defendant Hicks-Berry’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 898) is denied.”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Defendant’s motions to dismiss (Docs. 27, 28, 29).”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and the applicable law, enter an order denying Defendant’s Motion to Suppress and request for a Franks hearing.”
“Defendant’s motion to strike is hereby denied.”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and the applicable law, enter an order denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and the applicable law, enter an order denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s MHRA claims from her first Charge of Discrimination are dismissed. It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in all other respects.”
“Defendant Vertex, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is granted. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed and remanded, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Sentence Four, for further consideration and development of the record.”
“After careful consideration and for the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 8) is 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 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Western District of Missouri, not for Judge Morris: 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 Morris with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Morris, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Morris's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace