Ryan C. Carson
How Judge Carson rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Carson
Ryan C. Carson serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. He joined the federal bench in November 2024 after serving as a Nebraska state district judge. Before his judicial service, he practiced civil litigation in Nebraska.
Judge Carson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Carson, 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
Motions
A detention reconsideration motion must state Probation and Pretrial Services’ and the Government’s positions.
“all motions for reconsideration of detention shall contain a statement as to the respective positions of Probation and Pretrial Services and the Government.”
Motions
With a detention reconsideration motion, provide chambers a substance-abuse evaluation and treatment-program acceptance letter.
“Defendant shall provide to chambers a substance abuse evaluation and a letter of acceptance from the proposed treatment program”
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 Carson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hofer, the court allowed amendment while the proposed pleading overlapped with arguments already presented on a dismissal motion; the defendant could challenge the new pleading later.
“Because of the significant overlap with the issues previously raised in the motion to dismiss, and the general rule that amendments to the pleadings are to be liberally permitted, Plaintiff’s motion to amend will be granted.”
In Galindo, Carson declined to realign a Nebraska defendant as a plaintiff merely to preserve diversity jurisdiction and recommended remand.
“Plaintiff should be the master of his complaint, and the court will not interfere with his choice in how to pursue recovery.”
Procedural preferences
In Halo Synergy, the court refused an additional brief when the reply addressed issues already raised and the existing briefing gave both sides’ positions.
“There is no further need for briefing on that subject. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for leave to file surreply is denied.”
Cautions
In Griffin, a broad request for other employees’ discrimination and accommodation records failed because the requested scope exceeded the plaintiff’s own claims and implicated employee privacy.
“The broad requests also have other potential effects, including implicating privacy concerns for those employees who had requested accommodation or raised discrimination or retaliation concerns.”
In Seals, the court denied a late expert deadline extension after the plaintiff had repeated opportunities to raise the known problem.
“she has not shown, and the court cannot find, that there is good cause to reopen and extend a long-expired deadline, when the potential issue was known and could have been addressed at various points over the past year.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file her brief out of time, Filing No. 45, is denied.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Filing No. 22) be granted and this matter remanded to the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska.”
“The Motion to Stay All Proceedings (Filing No. 37) is denied. Defendant’s motion for alternative relief is granted in part.”
“The Motion to Stay All Proceedings (Filing No. 17) is denied.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Designate Place of trial as North Platte is denied without prejudice and subject to reassertion after further case progression.”
“Defendant’s Motion for the Return of Property, Filing Nos. 177 and 178, be denied”
“Defendant’s motion for leave to file surreply is denied. (Filing No. 119).”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend is granted. (Filing No. 106).”
“the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant (Filing No. 38) be denied in its entirety.”
“Defendant’s objection (Filing No. 73) is granted in part and overruled in part.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to extend the expert disclosure deadline is denied. (Filing No. 86).”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Filing No. 132) is denied.”
“Plaintiff’s Final Motion to Amend Complaint (Filing No. 32), is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The seven reviewed civil dockets include immigration, contract, employment, and Social Security matters. Three had termination dates in the case metadata; four had no termination date when checked. The observed orders were mostly early case management or dismissals without a contested motion decision.
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 |
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 Carson: 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 Carson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Carson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Carson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace