Jacqueline M. DeLuca
How Judge DeLuca rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge DeLuca
Jacqueline M. DeLuca serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. She earned undergraduate and law degrees from Creighton University. Her judicial work includes pretrial matters and recommendations in federal cases.
Judge DeLuca's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge DeLuca's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 DeLuca decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Paris, DeLuca recommended denying suppression of evidence from a vehicle stop. She found that the deputy’s observation of a rapid lane change supported the stop and that an objectively reasonable mistake about a traffic infraction would not invalidate it.
“even if Paris was not actually committing a traffic infraction, the stop was not a Fourth Amendment violation because the officer could have reasonably believed Paris was committing a traffic infraction.”
In United States v. Hinrichs, DeLuca recommended rejecting a Sixth Amendment speedy trial challenge. She found that the defendant had delayed the October trial by moving on its eve to continue it and reopen the expired pretrial motions deadline.
“the weight of this argument is greatly reduced by the fact this case was ready to go to trial in October. It did not because Hinrichs moved on the eve of trial to continue and reopen the long-expired pretrial motions deadline.”
In United States v. Dominguez, DeLuca recommended denying suppression of evidence from a sling bag searched during arrest. She found that Dominguez remained within reach of the bag while officers secured the scene and had not yet gained control of it.
“Dominguez was within reach of the bag as officers worked to secure the scene. He remained within reach of the bag during the search. Shortly before the search, officers can be heard yelling at Dominguez, and others, to remain still indicating officers did not have control of the scene and there remained a concern for officer safety.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Foster, DeLuca set deadlines for the government’s suppression response, a conference between the parties about hearing issues and stipulations, and delivery of witness and exhibit lists. She also scheduled a telephone status conference to discuss a possible evidentiary hearing.
“the parties shall meet and confer to resolve any issues not requiring an evidentiary hearing, agree upon any factual stipulations to be presented to the court, and discuss proposed exhibits and witnesses.”
In a civil subpoena dispute, DeLuca required proof that a nonparty had been properly served. After repeated instructions, she denied a motion to compel and granted a motion to quash when the plaintiff still supplied no evidence of service. A subpoena seeking answers or the creation of a new document also failed to satisfy the document-production rule.
“There is no evidence before the Court that the Plaintiff’s subpoena to Non-Party was served in accordance with the requisite rules.”
Cautions
In Whitten, DeLuca rejected a request for relief based on alleged forged declarations because the plaintiff presented no clear and convincing evidence of fraud. She nevertheless ordered Citibank to identify and provide the card agreements governing the account.
“Plaintiff has not presented clear and convincing evidence that Citibank, or its counsel, engaged in fraud or misrepresentation.”
In Seals, DeLuca declined to defer summary judgment for more discovery after the discovery and motion to compel deadlines had passed. She allowed additional time for the plaintiff to file an opposition brief.
“If Plaintiff ‘cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition’, it is due to the procedural stature of the case, not due to the lack of opportunity to engage in discovery.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT HEREBY IS RECOMMENDED to the Honorable Susan M. Bazis, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), that the motion to suppress, Filing No. 46, be denied.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED to the Honorable Susan M. Bazis, United States District Judge, that Hinrichs' motions to suppress, Filing Nos. 87, 107, and 110 and pro se motion to dismiss, Filing No. 113, be denied.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED to the Honorable Susan M. Bazis, United States District Judge, that Hinrichs' motions to suppress, Filing Nos. 87, 107, and 110 and pro se motion to dismiss, Filing No. 113, be denied. The portion of Hinrichs' pro se motion to dismiss pertaining to ineffective assistance of counsel should be denied without prejudice to Hinrichs' ability to later challenge the effectiveness of his trial counsel.”
Omnibus 32-page findings, recommendation, and order disposing of 66 pretrial motions filed by a pro se drug-distribution defendant; the bulk were recommended denied or denied (many sovereign-citizen theories recommended denied as frivolous, several denied as moot or duplicative). Given the volume and the pro se / sovereign-citizen character, it was read but its individual motions are not itemized in the motion statistics.
DeLuca granted an unopposed extension and set deadlines for suppression briefing, a meet-and-confer, exhibit exchange, and a prehearing status conference. The order did not resolve a contested merits motion.
DeLuca set a response deadline, meet-and-confer, exhibit exchange, and prehearing status conference for a motion to suppress. The order did not decide the motion's merits.
“In conclusion, Dominguez's bag was searched incident to his lawful arrest and his motion to suppress the evidence found within it should be denied.”
“Dominguez's motion to suppress any evidence derived or resulting from use of a GPS tracking device on his vehicle between May 15, 2024 and June 11, 2024, should be denied.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Filing No. 74, is denied.”
“Nebraska Department of Correctional Services and Director Rob Jeffreys’ Motion to Quash, Filing No. 75, is granted.”
“Plaintiff’s Objection and Request for USMS service, Filing No. 77, is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion to review the conditions of supervised release, (Filing No. 151), is granted.”
“Defendant’s motion to review the conditions of supervised release, (Filing No. 92), is granted.”
“Defendant’s motion to review the conditions of supervised release, (Filing No. 94), is granted.”
After a show cause order on service, DeLuca recommended dismissing claims against unserved defendants for failure of service and want of prosecution. The plaintiff’s response asked to dismiss several defendants voluntarily; the recommendation did not expressly resolve that request as a separate motion.
“Plaintiff’s motion for miscellaneous relief, Filing No. 35, is granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein.”
“Citibank’s motion to file sur-reply, Filing No. 45, is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The observed matters include criminal referrals, consent civil cases, Social Security appeals, initial appearances, immigration and public-records claims, personal injury, railroad injury, and product liability.
- The reviewed terminated non-consent civil cases ended through voluntary dismissal, stipulation, or settlement rather than a contested ruling; the sample is not a complete caseload enumeration.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, not for Judge DeLuca: 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 | 734 | 5.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 210 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 506 | 6.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 27.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 5 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 734 | 5.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 522 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 467 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 667 | 5.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 588 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 508 | 8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 492 | 8.6 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 DeLuca with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge DeLuca, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge DeLuca's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace