Andrea K. Johnstone
How Judge Johnstone rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Johnstone
Andrea K. Johnstone joined the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire as a magistrate judge in June 2014. Before her appointment, she practiced labor and employment law in New Hampshire, including at Bernstein Shur and Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell, and clerked in the New Hampshire Superior Court.
Judge Johnstone's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Johnstone'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 Johnstone decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Doe v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections, Johnstone recommended summary judgment for prison officials because Doe had not exhausted available grievance remedies before filing suit. She found his unsupported account of interference with grievances insufficient and concluded that his later exhaustion efforts did not cure the defect in the original complaint under First Circuit precedent.
“Thus, the undisputed facts demonstrate that Doe failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit.”
Procedural preferences
In Griffin v. Burndy, Johnstone construed a pro se employment complaint and related amendment requests to identify the asserted claims. She recommended dismissing the complaint as pleaded while allowing amendment of the retaliation, reverse discrimination, and whistleblower claims with more specific facts.
“Liberally construed, Mr. Griffin’s complaint and motions to amend and/or clarify assert claims for hostile work environment (Claim 1), retaliation (Claim 2), and reverse discrimination (Claim 3) under state and federal law, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Claim 4), negligence (Claim 5), and violation of New Hampshire’s Whistleblower Protection Act (Claim 6).”
In one personal-jurisdiction dispute, she allowed limited written discovery while denying depositions and postponing dismissal until the jurisdictional record developed.
“The court hereby grants TOI’s motion as to interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and denies the motion as to depositions.”
Cautions
In Griffin v. Burndy, Johnstone recommended dismissing the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim with prejudice because the private employer was not a state actor. She also recommended dismissal with prejudice of the negligence claim under the state workers’ compensation exclusive remedy.
“where Defendants engaged in purely private conduct, they are not state actors, and therefore, they cannot be liable under section 1983. For these reasons, Mr. Griffin’s section 1983 claim against Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the district judge should grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 7) for failure to state a claim.”
“the district judge should grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 79) and deny Doe’s cross motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 81).”
“For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should grant the amended motion to enforce (Doc. No. 20) as outlined above.”
“Based on the foregoing, the district judge should deny Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 3).”
“For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny Mr. Beers’s ‘Motion: Retaliation Claim’ (Doc. No. 137) seeking to add a retaliation claim to this action and obtain preliminary injunctive relief related to that claim.”
“Based on the foregoing, Deutsche’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 37) is granted in part and denied in part. Count I will be resolved at trial. Summary judgment is granted as to all other claims.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Hersey’s motion for summary judgment (document no. 11) is granted. Counts III and IV are dismissed.”
“For the reasons above, Concord Hospital’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to Dr. Foord’s EMTALA claim. The state law claims against Concord Hospital are dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Arias’s motion for court- appointed counsel (Doc. No. 35) is GRANTED, subject to the conditions set forth in this Order.”
“The court hereby grants TOI’s motion as to interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and denies the motion as to depositions. TOI is limited to ten (10) interrogatories. TOI must propound its discovery requests by October 23, 2019. If this period of jurisdictional discovery impacts other case deadlines, the parties may file an appropriate motion to extend with the court. TickCheck’s motion to dismiss (doc. no. 25) is denied without prejudice to refiling within 30 days after the close of jurisdictional discovery.”
“TickCheck’s motion to dismiss (doc. no. 25) is denied without prejudice to refiling within 30 days after the close of jurisdictional discovery.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the Town’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 23). The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
As is typical for a magistrate judge, her enumerated docket mixes referred pretrial matters (Rule 72 objections, discovery disputes), miscellaneous administrative-subpoena and search-warrant matters, and a smaller set of cases where parties consented to her jurisdiction for all purposes, including trial, under 28 U.S.C. 636(c).
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 District of New Hampshire, not for Judge Johnstone: 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 | 672 | 33 months |
| Closed with no court action | 89 | 3.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 506 | 41.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 74 | 15.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 672 | 33 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,499 | 49.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 529 | 23.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 313 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 318 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 335 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 418 | 10.2 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 Johnstone with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Johnstone, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Johnstone's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace