Lajuana M. Counts
How Judge Counts rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Counts
Lajuana M. Counts became a United States magistrate judge in the Western District of Missouri in 2018. She graduated from the University of Missouri–Columbia and the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law and previously worked as a prosecutor.
Judge Counts's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Counts, 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
Conferences
Submit a mediation statement five business days before the scheduled mediation.
“The parties are to submit a mediation statement five business days prior to the scheduled mediation”
Conferences
A party with full settlement authority must personally attend mediation unless the court orders otherwise.
“parties with full and complete settlement authority are required to personally attend the mediation”
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 Counts decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a criminal dismissal matter, the assigned district judge adopted Judge Counts’s recommendation after independent, de novo review. The recommendation is evidence of her reasoning; the district judge issued the final ruling.
“After an independent, de novo review of the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including a review of the applicable law and Defendant's objections, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations made by Magistrate Judge Lajuana M. Counts in full.”
Procedural preferences
In Vetsch, Judge Counts granted dismissal for several defendants but deferred part of two officers’ motion because the complaint did not say clearly how the plaintiff was dropped during his arrest. She allowed an amended complaint with more facts before deciding the officers’ immunity defenses.
“This Court will therefore defer ruling on the Motion to Dismiss and afford Plaintiffs an opportunity to provide greater detail by filing an amended complaint.”
In a consent civil case, she denied a transfer request where the insurer relied mainly on witness travel and failed to show that the interests of justice overcame the plaintiff’s forum choice. She treated the unraised objection to improper venue as waived.
“State Farm has failed to show that transfer is warranted in this matter.”
Cautions
In a criminal report and recommendation, she distinguished an appellate reversal for insufficient trial proof from an indictment challenge. She recommended denial because the indictment alleged the statutory elements; whether the government could prove them was for trial.
“Whether the government will introduce sufficient evidence to prove these allegations cannot be resolved prior to the government’s presentation of its case to the jury.”
In a federal employment suit, she dismissed a mixed administrative case claim after finding the plaintiff had not timely exhausted the required administrative process. Parties should identify the correct administrative route before filing a parallel civil claim.
“failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies of her mixed case”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lajuana M. Counts (Doc. 126) is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant's objection (Doc. 129) is OVERRULED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment on Counts One and Two (Doc. 108) is DENIED.”
“Judge Counts's Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety, and Defendant's Motion to Suppress, (Doc. 23), is DENIED.”
“ORDERED Defendant's amended motion to suppress (Doc. #70) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”
“ORDERED Defendant's motion to suppress evidence (Doc. #58) is DENIED AS MOOT for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”
“For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that defendant Patton's Motion to Dismiss Indictment be denied. ... RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying defendant Patton's Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. #31).”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying defendant Candela=s Motion to Suppress (Doc. #110).”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying defendant Cutchlow's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statement (Doc. #21).”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Defendant Justin Domonique Davis's Motion to Dismiss Indictment With Prejudice (Doc. #169).”
“The Court finds that a joinder of Counts Twenty-Two and Twenty-Three with the other counts of the Superseding Indictment appears to prejudice defendant Davis. The Court further finds that justice requires that Counts Twenty-Two and Twenty-Three be severed for trial. ... ORDERED that defendant Davis's Motion for Severance (Doc. #166) is granted.”
“The Court finds that defendant Reed has not met his burden of establishing that any alleged false statements or omissions were necessary to the probable cause determination. ... RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying defendant Reed's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #19).”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying defendant Perry's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #23).”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying as moot Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. #39).”
“ORDERED that Defendant Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, through its Individual Members Dawn Cramer's, Tom Whittaker's, Madeline Romious's, Scott Boswell, Sr.'s, and Mayor Quinton Lucas's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #32) is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant Kansas City, Missouri Police Department (KCPD) Officer Shamell Slatton's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #4) is GRANTED;”
“ORDERED that Defendants Kansas City, Missouri Police Department (KCPD) Officers Robbie McLaughlin's and Colton Evans's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #4) is GRANTED IN PART AND DEFERRED IN PART consistent with this Order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 236.5 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 1 days (N = 2).
The sampled consent civil docket includes employment and Title VII suits, personal-injury and motor-vehicle cases, civil-rights matters, Social Security appeals, and an alien-detainee habeas petition. Counts also handles search-warrant matters and serves as the referral magistrate on criminal suppression, dismissal, competency, and plea proceedings before the district judges.
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 Counts: 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 Counts with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Counts, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Counts's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace