Susan Davis Wigenton
How Judge Wigenton rules, drawn from 49 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wigenton
Susan Davis Wigenton is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Wigenton received a commission on June 12, 2006.
Judge Wigenton's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wigenton, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Mail a marked courtesy copy of motion papers the same day as ECF filing.
“One courtesy copy of motion papers, as required in the Court’s Policy and Procedures and marked ‘Courtesy Copy,’ shall be mailed to Chambers the same day the papers are filed on ECF.”
Trial
Provide proposed jury charges in Word format one week before trial unless chambers directs otherwise.
“Counsel shall provide a copy of proposed jury charges to Chambers in Microsoft Word format via email or thumb drive one week before trial, unless directed otherwise by Chambers.”
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 Wigenton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Disputes over an insurer's administration/payment of State Health Benefits Program (SHBP) benefits must be run through the plan's administrative appeal procedures and the State Health Benefits Commission before suit; failure to exhaust deprives the court of jurisdiction even when the complaint is framed as a HIPAA records request.
“Given the above regulations of the SHBP and the NJ Direct Plan's terms, Modern is required to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to filing an action.”
In Livingston v. Gallina, Wigenton held that the claims against Prosecutor Reyes were barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity.
“the claims against Prosecutor Reyes are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity.”
Procedural preferences
In Argen v. Katz, she denied reconsideration of a summary judgment order because the movant sought a different answer on an argument the court had already addressed.
“Asking this Court to ‘rethink’ its holding is not an appropriate basis upon which to seek reconsideration.”
In Berrada v. Cohen, she denied entry of a partial final judgment because the adjudicated claims and pending counterclaims substantially overlapped, creating a risk of repeated appellate review.
“If Plaintiff were permitted to appeal his claims now, there is a possibility that the Third Circuit would have to revisit the same issues on a future appeal after final disposition of Defendants’ counterclaims before this Court. Because there is no basis for the extraordinary relief sought, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.”
In Bouie v. City of Paterson, she denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity in a police shooting case because disputed facts about the encounter required a jury’s resolution.
“Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is therefore denied.”
Cautions
A Section 1983 Monell claim against a municipality is dismissed when the complaint pleads only generalized, conclusory descriptions of 'long-standing customs/policies' without specific factual allegations identifying the policy that caused the violation.
“Rather, Plaintiff relies on a lengthy list of alleged policies that are nothing more than generalized conclusory statements without any factual support... This is insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6).”
Expects strict adherence to filing deadlines; admonished counsel on the record for an untimely, unexcused opposition brief, and separately cautioned counsel for sloppy redactions that exposed a minor's and her parents' identities.
“Plaintiff's counsel is reminded that filing deadlines are not optional and must be adhered to in the future.”
On a Section 1983 substantive-due-process failure-to-protect claim, ordinary negligence is not enough; the plaintiff must show conduct 'so ill-conceived or malicious that it shocks the conscience' (deliberate indifference), and minor, non-serious injuries undercut the claim.
“Nothing about Defendant's conduct was 'so ill-conceived or malicious that it shocks the conscience.'”
In a challenge to a drone ordinance, denied emergency injunctive relief where recreational flight restrictions did not establish protected expression or imminent enforcement, leaving irreparable harm unproved.
“Accordingly, as Plaintiff has failed to establish irreparable harm, his TRO Motion fails.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Without Modern's exhaustion of its administrative remedies, this Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear this dispute and the Complaint must be dismissed.”
“There are no specific factual allegations, however, as to what those policies, procedures, or practices are... This is insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6). Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.”
“Because there is no basis for the extraordinary relief sought, Plaintiff's motion is denied.”
“Given these existing issues of fact, summary judgment is inappropriate at this juncture. The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment will be denied and this matter remanded with instructions to hold a due process hearing”
“the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment are DENIED and this matter REMANDED to the Administrative Law Judge for a due process hearing.”
“Regardless of the standard... Defendant's actions were, at best, negligent and do not rise to the level of 'deliberate indifference.'... For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is DENIED as moot.”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss certain counts of the SAC and Motion to Strike the class allegations, (D.E. 44), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1) Defendant’s motion is GRANTED with prejudice on all Counts as to Santiago; 2) Defendant’s motion is GRANTED with prejudice on Counts Three and Four as to Frederick; 3) Frederick’s MMWA claim, (Count One), and breach of express warranty claim, (Count Two), may proceed; and 4) Defendant’s Motion to Strike the class allegations is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 8) is GRANTED without prejudice.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s First, Second, and Fourth Claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim, except insofar as they are based on statements which are nonactionable opinions, and Plaintiff’s Third Claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint.”
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 8 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| 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 U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, not for Judge Wigenton: 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 Wigenton with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wigenton, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wigenton's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace