John M. Gerrard
How Judge Gerrard rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gerrard
John Melvin Gerrard is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Gerrard received a commission on February 6, 2012. Judge Gerrard assumed senior status on February 6, 2023.
Judge Gerrard's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gerrard, 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
Filing
If seeking oral testimony at sentencing, identify its expected content, need, witness, and estimated direct-examination time in the position statement.
“If oral testimony is desired, a request must be made in the statement of position and the statement of position must reveal”
Trial
In criminal jury trials, limit voir dire to 20 minutes per side.
“each lawyer will be allotted 20 minutes to conduct his or her voir dire examination.”
Trial
Avoid speaking objections and state the missing foundation when objecting on that ground.
“No speaking objections. For foundation objections, state what foundation is lacking.”
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 Gerrard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Knight v. Phillips, Gerrard treated the plaintiff's assertion in a brief that she lacked standing as a judicial admission. He dismissed the case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, including a counterclaim without an independent jurisdictional basis.
“The Court cannot ignore a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction... she has affirmatively asserted and judicially admitted its absence. And when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case in its entirety.”
In West v. Crnkovich, Gerrard abstained from the plaintiff’s claims tied to a state child custody dispute. He found the pleadings did not show that the state proceedings lacked a way to raise the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claims, and said a federal district court could not review or alter a final state judgment.
“In light of these findings, the court will abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims related to his child custody dispute.”
Procedural preferences
In the reviewed 2015 qualified-immunity dispute, the court granted Rule 56(d) discovery and denied summary judgment without prejudice because deposing the defendant was essential to a fair response. The result depended on the identified discovery need.
“the basic opportunity to depose the defendant is essential in responding to the summary judgment motion... the Court will grant the plaintiff's Rule 56(d) motion and deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment without prejudice.”
In West v. Crnkovich, Gerrard treated the claim against state caseworker Brown as an official-capacity claim because the plaintiff had not specified a capacity. He dismissed the damages claim against her under the Eleventh Amendment.
“Consequently, the court presumes that Brown is sued in her official capacity only.”
In Amerson, the court required additional briefing on new evidence of actual innocence before deciding a limitations-based habeas summary-judgment motion.
“Petitioner may not proceed under the miscarriage of justice exception as currently briefed.”
Cautions
In Creative Retail Packaging v. Freedom Foods, Gerrard deferred a default judgment ruling to allow the defendant to appear through counsel. He denied the plaintiff's request to add a pleading deadline because the defendant remained in default and the default judgment motion was still pending.
“the motion for default judgment remains pending, and Kids Against Hunger is still in default.”
In the reviewed 2026 qualified-immunity dispute, a request for more discovery failed because the plaintiff identified hoped-for deposition topics without showing that essential contrary facts existed. The court left the summary-judgment motion pending.
“But it is not enough for a plaintiff to set forth some facts he hopes to elicit from further discovery; he must show that the facts sought exist.”
In the reviewed quiet-title suit, he required evidence that the disputed property itself exceeded the $75,000 diversity threshold; a higher assessment for a different property with a house did not establish jurisdiction. He dismissed without prejudice to suit in state court.
“evidence indicates that the value of the property at issue in this case is not worth more than $75,000. This Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The plaintiff's Rule 56(d) motion (filing 54) is granted.”
“The defendant's motion for summary judgment (filing 50) is denied without prejudice to reassertion after a reasonable time for the parties to conduct discovery.”
“The plaintiff's motion (filing 41) to amend is denied.”
“Defendant Jessica Brown's Motion to Dismiss (filing no. 29) is granted.”
“Defendants' Motions to Dismiss filed before Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (filing nos. 6, 9, 11, 13, 16 and 17) are denied as moot.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Admittance of Supplemental Pleading (filing no. 23) is granted in part and denied in part in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (filing no. 20) and Motion to Set Discovery Calendar (filing no. 31) are denied as moot.”
“The plaintiff's objection (filing 82) is overruled.”
The court ordered supplemental briefing on whether the habeas petitioner could establish an actual-innocence exception to the limitations period. It reserved decision on the respondent’s summary-judgment motion.
“The defendants' motions to suppress (filing 24, filing 25) are denied.”
“The defendant's motion to dismiss (filing 26) is denied.”
“The defendant's motion to dismiss (filing 335) is denied.”
“the Court will deny this request without prejudice to reassertion before trial.”
“The plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Forfeiture Allegation (filing 49) is granted.”
“The defendant's motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement (filing 133) is denied.”
“The defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search (filing 135) is denied.”
“The defendant's motion to dismiss (filing 160) is denied.”
“Defendant Nissen’s motion for leave to file out of time, Filing No. 56, is granted.”
“The defendant's § 2255 motion is untimely, and will be summarily 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 | 9 |
| 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 | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 9 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 District of Nebraska, not for Judge Gerrard: 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 Gerrard with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gerrard, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gerrard's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace