Joseph F. Bataillon
How Judge Bataillon rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bataillon
Joseph F. Bataillon is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Bataillon received a commission on September 18, 1997. Judge Bataillon assumed senior status on October 3, 2014.
Judge Bataillon's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bataillon, 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
Except in unusually complex cases, keep briefs under 25 pages apart from the numbered contested and uncontested issues.
“Except in extremely complicated cases, Judge Bataillon prefers briefs that are less than 25 pages (exclusive of the section numbering contested and uncontested issues).”
Filing
If requesting oral testimony at sentencing, explain in the position statement why documentary evidence will not suffice and identify the witness and expected length.
“If oral testimony is desired, a request must be made in the statement of position and the statement of position must reveal”
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 Bataillon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Moss v. Jeffreys, Bataillon granted habeas relief on the claim that the state trial court used a stun belt without making findings on the record to justify it. He found the omission prejudiced Moss and had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict, while denying the remaining claims.
“The trial court abused its discretion by utilizing the Stun-Belt without making findings on the record regarding its use, which prejudiced Moss, resulting in a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict at his trial.”
In Blair v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, Bataillon declined to dismiss claims against defendants for late service where the plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, had timely supplied summons forms and the delay was attributable to court officers. He dismissed other unserved defendants after the plaintiff failed to comply with service requirements.
“In forma pauperis litigants are entitled to rely on the court’s officers and the Unites States Marshals to effect proper service, and should not be penalized where such failure is through no fault of the litigant.”
In Allee v. Nebraska Attorney General, Bataillon stayed a habeas petition to allow exhaustion of an ineffective assistance claim in state court. He found good cause in appellate counsel’s failure to preserve review, determined the claim was not plainly meritless, and found no abusive delay.
“the court finds good cause exists for failure to exhaust this claim ... the court will grant Allee’s motion for a stay to complete the exhaustion process”
Procedural preferences
In Blair v. Anderson, Bataillon excluded a proposed police expert’s opinions on the Fourth Amendment reasonableness of the officers’ conduct because they were legal conclusions. He also excluded testimony about department procedures as irrelevant to whether a constitutional violation occurred.
“The court finds such opinion is a conclusion of law and would invade the province of the court and of the trier of fact in this case.”
In Brooks v. Bell, Bataillon dismissed the damages claim against a deputy sheriff in his official capacity because the defendant was a state employee and the state had not waived sovereign immunity. The individual-capacity claim continued.
“Bell’s Motion to Dismiss is therefore granted and this matter will proceed against Bell in his individual capacity only.”
In a dispute with an arbitration clause, he compelled arbitration and stayed related claims against other parties when the arbitrated issues overlapped the remaining merits, allowing the dismissal motions to be renewed after the stay.
“the issues of fact and law in arbitration are inseparable from the merits”
Cautions
In Goodwin v. Dunning, Bataillon adopted a recommendation to dismiss a pro se civil rights case with prejudice after the plaintiff ignored discovery orders and two ordered conferences. Her summary judgment motion became moot after dismissal.
“A pro se litigant is bound by the litigation rules as is a lawyer, particularly here with the fulfilling of simple requirements of discovery.”
In Farm Credit, the court denied an interim noncompete injunction where the record did not establish a violation of the nonsolicitation agreement; the damages claim continued.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and the record does not support such extraordinary relief for Farm Credit’s claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (filing no. 13) is granted. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bell in his official capacity are dismissed.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Stay (filing no. 15) is denied as moot.”
“Defendants ... Motion to Dismiss (filing no. 59) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s Objection to the Motion to Dismiss (filing no. 64) is granted.”
“Defendants Robertus and Finegan’s Motion to Quash (filing no. 36) is granted.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend (filing no. 31) is denied.”
“Defendants’ motion in limine, Filing No. 354, is granted as set forth herein.”
“Plaintiff’s motion in limine, Filing No. 360, is denied as moot as set forth herein.”
“Defendants’ motion in limine, Filing No. 371, is granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein.”
“Allee’s motion to stay, Filing No. 25, is granted. The writ of habeas corpus is stayed.”
“Plaintiff’s objection, Filing No. 42, is denied;”
“The motion for summary judgment, Filing No. 44, is denied as moot;”
“Moss' Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Filing No. 1, is granted in part and denied in part. A. The Court finds that Claim One, Subparts One and Three warrant habeas relief. The trial court abused its discretion by utilizing the Stun-Belt without making findings on the record regarding its use, which prejudiced Moss, resulting in a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict at his trial. B. The Court finds that all remaining Claims and Subparts alleged in the Petition do not warrant relief for the reasons set forth herein and are hereby denied with prejudice.”
“Farm Credit’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 8) is denied.”
“The motion to dismiss and to decertify are denied as untimely.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (filing no. 22) is denied without prejudice to reassertion in a motion for summary judgment.”
“Because Plaintiff’s request for additional damages is now part of his Complaint, his Motion for Leave is denied.”
“This Notice merely provided Plaintiff with information for future filings; it required no response from Plaintiff. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Showing of Good Cause is denied.”
“O’Neill’s Motion to Dismiss (filing no. 58) is denied without prejudice to reassertion in a motion for summary judgment.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (filing no. 60) is denied as premature.”
“The joint motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ complaint against Paul Kratz, in his official capacity, Michelle Peters, in her individual and official capacities and Brook Bench, in his individual and official capacities, Filing No. 50, is granted with prejudice”
“The defendants’ motion to dismiss, Filing No. 47 is denied as moot.”
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 30 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 30 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 21 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 16 |
| Sep 2024 | 22 | 18 |
| Mar 2024 | 18 | 13 |
| Sep 2023 | 12 | 11 |
| Mar 2023 | 12 | 9 |
| Sep 2022 | 7 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 14 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 8 |
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 Bataillon: 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 Bataillon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bataillon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bataillon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace