Elizabeth A. Wolford
How Judge Wolford rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wolford
Elizabeth Ann Wolford is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Wolford received a commission on December 17, 2013.
Judge Wolford's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wolford, 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
Motions
The court generally enters scheduling orders on civil motions, except motions for attorney’s fees in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) cases.
“It is the Court’s general practice to enter scheduling orders on motions in civil cases, with the exception of motions for attorney’s fees in cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
Motions
Memoranda supporting or opposing motions are limited to twenty-five pages and replies to ten pages unless leave is requested at least one business day before filing.
“Pursuant to L. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(2)(C) and L. R. Crim. P. 12(c), a memorandum of law in support of or in opposition to any motion shall not exceed twenty-five pages in length, and a reply memorandum shall not exceed ten pages in length.”
Motions
After filing injunctive or expedited relief, the moving party must telephone chambers so the court can set the briefing schedule and return date.
“Immediately after the filing of a request for injunctive or expedited relief in any case assigned to Judge Wolford, the moving party must telephone Chambers to notify the Court that the motion has been filed.”
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).
- Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents (Amended General Order 167) ↗
- General Order 157: Disclosure of Members, Shareholders, Partners, and Leaders of Business Organization Parties ↗
- General Order 166: Identification Procedures in Courthouses ↗
- General Order 168: Dispositive Referrals of Social Security Appeals to United States Magistrate Judge ↗
How Judge Wolford decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an immigration-detention case, the judge treated the government's vague, conclusory declaration that it was 'actively working' toward removal as insufficient to rebut a detainee's Zadvydas showing: she wanted concrete evidence of progress, not a general assurance.
“Respondents offer a declaration from an ICE deportation officer at the BFDF who cryptically states: ‘DHS is actively working with the Department of State on avenues to remove Petitioner to a third country.’ ... The Court finds this inadequate to rebut the showing under Zadvydas.”
Procedural preferences
In H-A- v. Marich, Wolford allowed the petitioner to proceed under a pseudonym but denied without prejudice a blanket request to seal future filings, requiring later requests when those documents were filed.
“Petitioner's request that he be granted leave to file future filings and court documents under seal is denied without prejudice. Aside from his identity, which will remain confidential at this time, Petitioner must seek leave to file any future documents under seal contemporaneously with their filing.”
In a suit arising from state family-court proceedings, the court granted dismissal motions after finding defective service, but allowed a new amended complaint and additional time to serve. It treated pending temporary restraining order, discovery, and sanctions requests as moot following the dispositive rulings.
“In light of the Court’s ruling on the dispositive motions, Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining orders, to compel, and for sanctions are denied without prejudice as moot.”
Cautions
The court rejected recusal based on unsupported suspicions of relationships with parties or judicial officers. It required objective evidence capable of calling impartiality into question.
“Plaintiff’s claims are completely speculative and lack foundation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated above, Lema's petition is GRANTED to the extent that Respondents are ordered to IMMEDIATELY release him from custody.”
“the petition is granted to the extent that Petitioner seeks a bond hearing, and a bond hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the following terms”
“Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall administratively terminate this action without filing the complaint or assessing a filing fee”
“Dr. Mezu-Ndubuisi's motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. 70) is DENIED as unripe, without prejudice to renewal should it become ripe;”
“Dr. Mezu-Ndubuisi's motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. 74) is DENIED;”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Dkt. 38) is stayed pending further order of the Court, except for her Title VII claims as against the individual defendants, her due process claims, and her breach of contract claims, which are DISMISSED by the consent of the parties.”
“ORDERED that plaintiff FirstLight Home Care Franchising, LLC's (‘Plaintiff’) motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. 2) is granted;”
“the petition is granted to the extent that Petitioner seeks a bond hearing, and a bond hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the following terms”
“the petition is granted to the extent that Petitioner seeks a bond hearing, and a bond hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the following terms”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in favor of all defendants on the federal claims asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Those claims are dismissed with prejudice.”
“The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and therefore, those claims are dismissed without prejudice and Defendants' motion to dismiss the state-law claims is denied as moot.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment in lieu of answer (Dkt. 57) is denied without prejudice to renewal upon completion of discovery.”
“Defendants' motion to construe their prior memorandum of law as opposition to Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and to vacate the entry of default is granted, and Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is denied as moot.”
“Defendants' partial motion to dismiss and/or strike the class allegations is denied.”
“Moving Defendants' motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 61) is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The five selected matters comprise four Social Security disability appeals and one immigration-detention habeas petition. The two newly reviewed disability appeals both resulted in remand for further agency proceedings. This targeted selection does not establish the judge’s overall case 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 | 4 |
| 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 | 47 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 47 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 54 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 51 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 46 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 63 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 70 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 72 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 61 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 58 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 60 |
| Mar 2021 | 5 | 54 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 56 |
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 Western District of New York, not for Judge Wolford: 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 | 1,499 | 9.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 91 | 8.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,344 | 8.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 56 | 28.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,499 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,783 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,768 | 15.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,892 | 15.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,130 | 14.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,177 | 14.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,971 | 14.8 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 Wolford with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wolford, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wolford's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace