Willie J. Epps, Jr.
How Judge Epps rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Epps
Willie J. Epps Jr. became a United States magistrate judge in the Western District of Missouri in 2017. He studied at Amherst College and Harvard Law School and handles referred pretrial matters and recommendations on dispositive motions.
Judge Epps's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Epps, 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
Trial
Test courtroom equipment more than one week before trial.
“Please test the equipment in the courtroom more than one week prior to trial. This is a requirement, not an option”
Trial
Mark each exhibit individually; if only part of a document will be admitted, give that part its own exhibit number.
“Exhibits should be marked individually. If only one page or portion of evidence will be admitted, it should have its own exhibit number”
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 Epps decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Parker’s wiretap case, Judge Epps recommended denying suppression after finding that the affidavits explained why conventional techniques had not exposed the full drug conspiracy, even though investigators had already obtained some evidence through other methods.
“the undersigned recommends that District Judge find Government’s use of ordinary investigation techniques did not foreclose its need for wiretaps.”
In Garrett v. Inhabitants of the U.S., Epps recommended denying leave to proceed without fees and dismissing the complaint after screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The amended pleading named unidentified defendants without a definite number and did not state a plausible claim.
“the facts alleged in Mr. Garrett’s Amended Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
In Lopez v. Dudek, Epps reversed and remanded a disability benefits denial. The administrative law judge had relied on consultant opinions that predated relevant later medical records, leaving the residual functional capacity finding without substantial evidence.
“Because the ALJ supported Mr. Lopez’s RFC with the opinions of Drs. Alden and Weiss, which predate Mr. Lopez’s relevant medical records, the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence.”
In Chastain’s Social Security appeal, Judge Epps affirmed the Commissioner because the mental RFC had substantial record support. He found that the ALJ mishandled the two-step substance-use analysis but held the error harmless on this record.
“the Court finds that the mental RFC is supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ erred by not conducting the two-step process related to Mr. Chastain’s alcohol and substance use but that such error was harmless.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Pate, Epps recommended deferring an as-applied challenge to a firearm indictment until after trial because ruling on it would require resolving disputed facts about the alleged offense.
“Accordingly, the Court recommends that the District Judge find that there is good cause to defer ruling on Mr. Pate’s motion until after trial.”
In United States v. Platek, Epps recommended denying suppression. After reviewing the defendant’s objections de novo, the district judge adopted the recommendation and denied the motion.
“the Court accepts the findings and recommendations made by Chief Magistrate Judge Willie J. Epps, Jr. in full.”
In Thomas’s criminal case, Judge Epps recommended denying a pro se suppression motion filed while Thomas had competent appointed counsel, because Thomas had not given a reason to permit hybrid representation. He advised that counsel could file a motion if warranted.
“For the reasons above, Mr. Thomas should not be allowed to engage in hybrid representation by bringing the instant Motion to Suppress and Motion for Hearing pro se and the motions should be denied.”
He granted a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice after substantial discovery because the defendant showed only litigation expense and loss of a federal forum, rather than legal prejudice distinct from defending a later suit.
“First Student has not identified prejudice that is wholly distinct from defending a subsequent lawsuit.”
Cautions
In United States v. Crabtree, Epps recommended denying a motion to reopen a suppression hearing. The defendant had already questioned the officer about the drug dog's reliability at the original hearing, and reopening the record months later would prejudice the government.
“Given the prolonged period of time and the nature of the proposed evidence, the Government would be prejudiced by reopening the record.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court recommends denying the Motion to Suppress and denying as moot the Motion for Hearing.”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order DENYING Defendant William Austin Lee Crabtree’s Motion to Reopen Suppression Hearing as to Count One. (Doc. 56).”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the District Judge, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order DENYING Defendant Dejuan T. Parker’s Motion to Suppress Wiretaps.”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Judge, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Mr. Garrett’s motion and dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the District Judge, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order GRANTING Defendant Haley Covell’s motion to join Mr. Utter’s motion and DENYING Defendants Frederick Bert Utter, Jr. and Haley Covell’s Motion to Suppress Evidence. (Docs. 38, 49).”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Judge, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Mr. Garrett’s motion and dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Judge, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Mr. Garrett’s motion and dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Judge, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Mr. Garrett’s motion and dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Judge, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Ms. Adams’ motion and dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).”
“IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded for further consideration and development of the record, as set forth herein.”
“IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded for further consideration and development of the record, as set forth herein.”
“IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the decision of the Acting Commissioner is reversed and remanded for further consideration and development of the record, as set forth herein.”
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 Epps: 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 Epps with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Epps, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Epps's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace