Elizabeth C. Coombe
How Judge Coombe rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Coombe
Elizabeth Cheryl Coombe is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Coombe received a commission on December 9, 2024.
Judge Coombe's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Coombe'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).
- General Order 14: Civil RICO Statement ↗
- General Order 15: Uniform Procedure for Civil and Criminal Forfeiture Cases ↗
- General Order 18: Social Security Docket Assignment, Management, and Filing Requirements ↗
- General Order 22: Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing ↗
- General Order 25: Civil Case Assignment and Filing Order ↗
- General Order 47: Mandatory Mediation Program ↗
- General Order 52: Letters Regarding Sentencings ↗
- General Order 62: Procedures for Filing, Service and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
How Judge Coombe decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In McNeill v. Office of Children and Family Services, Coombe granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss but allowed the plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint.
“Defendant's motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 10, is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to amend ... any amended complaint must be filed within 30 days”
In Pompilo v. Small Business Administration, she dismissed a quiet-title complaint because federal foreclosure rights under the SBA mortgage were not barred by state or federal limitation periods, and the loan documents selected federal law.
“the federal government is 'never time barred from bringing a foreclosure action because of a statute of limitations.'”
When immigration detention was unlawful and promised custody hearings remained unscheduled, she ordered individualized bond hearings within seven days and placed a clear-and-convincing burden on the government to prove dangerousness or flight risk.
“the appropriate relief is a prompt bond hearing”
Procedural preferences
In Cade v. Hart, Coombe adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in full, granted the unopposed summary judgment motion, and dismissed the complaint.
“the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety ... Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 30, is GRANTED; ... Plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED”
Cautions
In Ruffner v. Grid One Solutions, Coombe dismissed named plaintiff Larry Balcolm’s claims with prejudice under Rule 41(b) after he failed to prosecute them.
“the Defendant's motion to dismiss Named Plaintiff Larry Balcolm's claims pursuant to Rule 41(b), Dkt. No. 43, is GRANTED, and Named Plaintiff Larry Balcolm's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice”
In Hamza’s removed state prosecution, she denied reconsideration of a remand order because review was barred under section 1447(d); she also found no changed law, new evidence, or error that would justify reconsideration.
“Even if the remand order were reviewable, however, Hamza has not identified a change of law, new evidence, or error that would be a basis for reconsideration.”
In a discovery appeal, the court upheld denial of a motion to compel filed after discovery closed because the movant supplied no good cause for the delay.
“Plaintiff’s motion to compel was therefore appropriately denied as untimely.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Dkt. No. 23, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim ... this claim is DISMISSED without prejudice ... in all other respects DENIED”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 10, is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to amend ... any amended complaint must be filed within 30 days”
“the Defendant's motion to dismiss Named Plaintiff Larry Balcolm's claims pursuant to Rule 41(b), Dkt. No. 43, is GRANTED, and Named Plaintiff Larry Balcolm's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice”
“Plaintiff's motion, Dkt. No. 18, is DENIED; it is further ORDERED that unless Plaintiff amends its complaint within 30 days, this action is to be dismissed without prejudice”
“Magistrate Judge Lovric's Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 81, is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant Cayuga County's motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 62, is DENIED”
“the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety ... Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 30, is GRANTED; ... Plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED”
“ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration and to Vacate Summary Remand is denied.”
“ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 15, is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED”
On clear-error review, the court adopted an unobjected recommendation to dismiss a pro se FOIL case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order states: 'Plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice but without leave to amend.' No party motion was adjudicated, so the order is excluded from motion statistics.
“ORDERED that the Petitions are GRANTED solely to the extent that the Court orders Respondents to provide Petitioners with individualized bond hearings before an immigration judge within seven days of this order, at which the government will bear the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk”
“ORDERED that Petitioners’ requests for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act are DENIED WITH LEAVE TO RENEW because they are premature”
“ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 133, is DENIED”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 135, is DENIED”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 33, is GRANTED in part and”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s request to seal, Dkt. No. 20, is GRANTED”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s request to seal, Dkt. No. 23, is GRANTED in part”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s request to seal, Dkt. No. 34, is DENIED without prejudice”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s request to seal, Dkt. No. 42, is GRANTED in part”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 170 days (N = 9).
The reviewed June 2024 through March 2025 filing window spans civil-rights, employment, education, Social Security, tax-recovery, mortgage-foreclosure, and criminal matters. The cases assigned after Coombe's December 2024 commission reflect a broad general-civil district docket, but most remain pending. The few early civil terminations support only illustrative duration figures.
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 | 21 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 21 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 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 Northern District of New York, not for Judge Coombe: 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 | 1,302 | 8.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 227 | 4.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 796 | 7.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 267 | 17.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 53.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,302 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,393 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,249 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,444 | 12 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,120 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,195 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,187 | 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 Coombe with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Coombe, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Coombe's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace