Julien Xavier Neals
How Judge Neals rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Neals
Julien Xavier Neals is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Neals received a commission on June 22, 2021.
Judge Neals's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Neals, 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
Contacting chambers
File letters to chambers through CM/ECF; do not deliver hard copies.
“All communications with Chambers shall be by letter electronically filed via CM/ECF. No hard copies or courtesy copies of letters shall be delivered to the Court.”
Filing
Provide courtesy copies only when the court requests them.
“Courtesy Copies. By request of the Court only.”
Motions
Request a pre-motion conference before a dismissal, more-definite-statement, or judgment-on-the-pleadings motion.
“before bringing a motion to dismiss, a motion for a more definite statement, or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a party must submit a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, requesting a pre-motion conference.”
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).
- Second Amended Standing Order 2026-02: In Re Increase in Immigration-Related Habeas Corpus Petitions seeking Emergent Relief ↗
- Standing Order 2025-05: IN RE Procedures for Access to and Service of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order 2025-04: IN RE "Schedule A" Cases ↗
- Standing Order 2024-03: In re: Amendment to Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents and Guidance for Same ↗
- Standing Order 2024-02: Electronic Signatures ↗
How Judge Neals decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Arguetta v. County of Essex, Neals dismissed the § 1983 claims against the county without prejudice. He reasoned that New Jersey prosecutors performing core prosecutorial functions act as state officials, so the county was not vicariously liable for those acts.
“the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 6] is GRANTED and all claims against Essex County are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
In a self-service premises-liability case, applies New Jersey's mode-of-operation doctrine to relieve the plaintiff of proving actual or constructive notice and shift the burden to the business, treating notice and the adequacy of the business's care as jury questions and denying summary judgment.
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
Procedural preferences
In Naderi v. Concentra Health Services, Neals found the complaint unintelligible and granted UPS's alternative Rule 12(e) request for a more definite statement. He denied UPS's dismissal request without prejudice and allowed the plaintiff to replead.
“the Motion is GRANTED as to UPS's alternative request for an Order directing Plaintiff to submit a more definite statement of the Complaint ... The Motion is DENIED without prejudice as to UPS's request for dismissal of the Complaint.”
Cautions
In Morales v. State of New Jersey, Neals denied reconsideration of a prior dismissal. He had already considered the plaintiff's removal allegation, and the asserted post-order termination did not qualify as newly discovered evidence for reconsideration.
“For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 24) is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court declines jurisdiction, stays this matter, and makes no findings as to the relief sought under Fed. R. Civ. P.12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The State Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“And the POBA’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31) is DENIED as moot.”
“the Motion is GRANTED as to UPS's alternative request for an Order directing Plaintiff to submit a more definite statement of the Complaint ... The Motion is DENIED without prejudice as to UPS's request for dismissal of the Complaint.”
“For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 24) is DENIED.”
“the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 6] is GRANTED and all claims against Essex County are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
Initial screening of a pro se prisoner's Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement complaint against a prison administrator. The complaint contained no factual allegations tying the administrator personally to the alleged conditions, so it was dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend.
Sua sponte screening of an in forma pauperis complaint by a self-identified vexatious litigant against Maryland officials, filed in New Jersey despite no connection to the district. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice for improper venue after the court found no basis to transfer given the plaintiff's history of filing the same claims across dozens of districts and a pre-filing injunction already in place against him elsewhere.
Sua sponte screening of a pro se litigant's ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and civil-rights claims arising from a state-court divorce proceeding, against the presiding state judge and state judicial bodies. Claims against the judge were dismissed with prejudice under absolute judicial immunity; Section 1983 claims against the state judiciary were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity; the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims and a sprawling, fact-free amended complaint were dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend.
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“for summary judgment (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 79) (ECF No. 86) is DENIED without prejudice”
“the Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 472.5 days (N = 18).
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 | 4 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 36 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 36 |
| Sep 2025 | 9 | 39 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 37 |
| Sep 2024 | 10 | 43 |
| Mar 2024 | 21 | 41 |
| Sep 2023 | 55 | 33 |
| Mar 2023 | 76 | 43 |
| Sep 2022 | 96 | 47 |
| Mar 2022 | 107 | 65 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 59 |
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 U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, not for Judge Neals: 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 | 8,970 | 8.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 370 | 4.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,266 | 5.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 2,317 | 14.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 17 | 36.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 8,970 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,921 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 8,378 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 7,053 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 9,064 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 9,031 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 10,590 | 9 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 Neals with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Neals, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Neals's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace