Samantha Dowd Elliott
How Judge Elliott rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Elliott
Samantha Dowd Elliott is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Elliott received a commission on December 21, 2021.
Judge Elliott's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Elliott'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 Elliott decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Cancelmo website-tracking case, the judge read New Hampshire's Wiretap Act by its plain statutory text rather than importing a narrower construction from an out-of-state high court: she distinguished a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that limited that state's wiretap law to person-to-person communications, because New Hampshire's statute defines 'telecommunication' more broadly as any transfer of information, without that limit.
“This court respectfully declines to apply Vita because the New Hampshire Wiretap Act is distinguishable... the New Hampshire Wiretap Act is not ambiguous because it protects ‘telecommunication[s],’ which it defines as ‘the transfer of any form of information in whole or in part through the facilities of a communications common carrier.’”
In an immigration bond challenge, she required substantial evidence for a clear-and-convincing dangerousness finding and ordered a new hearing limited to flight risk after finding the circumstantial fraud evidence inadequate.
“The circumstantial evidence in the record that Singh was culpable in the fraud scheme is insufficient to constitute substantial evidence in support of the IJ’s finding.”
In one Social Security appeal, she remanded because the administrative law judge treated a later ceremonial marriage as automatically negating a prior common-law marriage, rather than reviewing the whole record under the correct legal standard.
“the ALJ based his decision on an incorrect legal standard when he assumed that a ceremonial marriage would negate a common-law marriage in all circumstances.”
Procedural preferences
In Fisher v. Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, Elliott dismissed an ADA retaliation claim for lack of administrative exhaustion. She found the employee’s agency filings did not allege facts that would lead a reasonable investigation to uncover the retaliation theory pleaded in court.
“Fisher’s administrative filings contain no allegations that would lead a reasonable investigation to uncover the retaliation claim that appears in her complaint.”
Cautions
In Costenbader v. Home Depot, Elliott denied a motion to enforce a purported settlement after finding factual disputes about whether the plaintiff agreed to release her injury claim. Apart from language on a check stub, the record lacked undisputed evidence that the payment was intended to settle the case.
“There is no uncontroverted evidence in the record, other than the language on the check stub, that the check was intended to buy peace.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. no. 7) with respect to Count I without prejudice to Cancelmo’s right to amend his complaint and denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Count II.”
“the court grants Southern’s partial motion to dismiss Count III insofar as it alleges retaliation under the ADA (doc. no. 17).”
“The respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is denied as moot.”
“the respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is granted.”
“the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 36) is granted, but its request for attorney’s fees and costs is denied.”
“Home Depot’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement (doc. no. 7) is denied.”
“For the reasons explained therein, defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 6) is denied without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 11) is granted. The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.”
“For the reasons explained therein, Novo Nordisk’s motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 10) is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court grants Webb’s motion for summary judgment on Vera’s retaliation claim in Count III to the extent that it is based on allegations that Wagner retaliated against her by shunning her. To the extent that Count III is premised on Vera’s termination, the court denies the motion for summary judgment. The court also denies summary judgment on all other remaining counts.”
“The court grants in part the plaintiff’s motion for declaratory judgment (Doc. No. 21) to the extent that it requests that the court declare that the lawsuit does not trigger coverage under the CGL Policy. The court denies without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion for declaratory judgment to the extent that it requests that the court declare that the lawsuit does not trigger coverage under the E&O Endorsement.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Katsigiannis’s motion to remand (doc no. 7) and grants the USPS’s motion to dismiss Parsons’s third-party complaint (doc. no. 10). Nevertheless, the court remands the case sua sponte.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The fixed 2022-numbered civil slice contains prisoner petitions and civil-rights suits, contract and employment matters, and a Social Security case. The available docket streams vary greatly in depth; this is descriptive context, not a courtwide mix.
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 | 12 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
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 Elliott: 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 Elliott with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Elliott, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Elliott's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace