Steven James McAuliffe
How Judge McAuliffe rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McAuliffe
Steven J. McAuliffe is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge McAuliffe received a commission on October 10, 1992. Judge McAuliffe assumed senior status on April 1, 2013.
Judge McAuliffe's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge McAuliffe'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 McAuliffe decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Russo v. New Hampshire Neurospine Institute, McAuliffe granted Dr. Ahn summary judgment on an aiding-and-abetting discrimination claim. Russo had not shown facts establishing a prima facie case under the burden-shifting framework, and he found her pretext evidence insufficient even if she had made that initial showing.
“Russo omits the elements of a prima facie case and moves directly to evidence of pretext.”
In United States v. McCord, McAuliffe denied a request to certify an interlocutory appeal. He characterized the proposed issue as a challenge to applying settled parent-company liability law to the case’s facts and found no substantial ground for a difference of opinion.
“Such a challenge is not appropriate for interlocutory review because defendant has not sufficiently established a ‘substantial ground for difference of opinion,’ as required by Section 1292(b).”
Procedural preferences
In Russo v. New Hampshire Neurospine Institute, McAuliffe denied reconsideration of summary judgment after Russo raised arguments she had not developed in opposition and failed to show an error in his pretext analysis.
“A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to fix procedural errors or make new arguments.”
In Melendez, McAuliffe dismissed a self-represented plaintiff’s case with prejudice under Rule 41(b) after repeated discovery failures, ignored warnings, and an unanswered show-cause order.
“Melendez has demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance, neglect, and intentional disregard for both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and court orders. He has repeatedly ignored court directives and deadlines and, critically, he has failed to meaningfully participate in any aspect of the discovery process.”
Cautions
In CSMI v. Intelagard, McAuliffe ordered the plaintiff LLC to amend its complaint to identify its members’ citizenship. Alleging only the LLC’s state of organization and principal place of business did not establish diversity jurisdiction, so the case could not proceed on that pleading.
“CSMI has not met its burden to show that subject matter jurisdiction exists in this court, and the case cannot proceed in the absence of jurisdiction.”
In Fitzgerald v. Red Roof Inn, McAuliffe saw apparent abandonment but ordered the plaintiff to show cause before dismissing for failure to prosecute. He noted that dismissal with prejudice was a strong remedy and the record lacked violations of discovery orders.
“Dismissal, particularly with prejudice, is a strong remedy, however, and plaintiff's circumstances, as pled, are such that the matter ought to be clear (particularly given the absence of any violations of orders to compel discovery, etc.).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
The docket text records the underlying motion to dismiss as 'granted, in part,' but the order itself is a deferred procedural ruling: the court found the record suggested the plaintiff had abandoned her claims but held that dismissal, especially with prejudice, was too serious a step without first giving her a final chance to respond, ordering her to show cause within roughly two weeks why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
“The motion to dismiss (document no. 10) is denied.”
“Defendants, on the other hand, have demonstrated that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and, given the undisputed material facts, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law”
“Defendant's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (document no. 73) is denied.”
“Harbour Plaza's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (document no. 14) is, therefore, granted.”
“the patentee's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to literal infringement (document no. 63) is hereby denied.”
“IPS's motion for summary judgment (document no. 98) is granted. The quantum meruit claim is dismissed.”
“the court grants plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint (doc. no. 48), and plaintiffs shall file the second amended complaint (doc. no. 48-1) as a separate document within three days from the date of this order.”
“The court denies plaintiffs' expedited motion to hold a bench trial on the merits (document no. 49).”
“The court denies defendants' motion to take judicial notice of facts found in Tirrell v. Edelblut (document no. 39).”
“the Institute's motion to strike (document no. 56) is denied.”
“Dr. Ahn's motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 42) is granted. The claims against Dr. Ahn in Counts II, III, and V are dismissed.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court denies the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (doc. no. 78).”
“the Institute's motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 82) is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled window shows a docket mixing prisoner Section 1983 and pro se civil-rights suits (several ending in early 1915A/1915(e) screening dismissals), a substantial share of cases that resolve by negotiated settlement or stipulated dismissal well before any dispositive motion is briefed, and a smaller share of contested commercial and constitutional litigation (a federal Telecommunications Act tower-siting suit, an FLSA collective action resolved by consent decree).
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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 6 |
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 McAuliffe: 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 McAuliffe with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McAuliffe, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McAuliffe's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace