John Leonard Sinatra Jr.
How Judge Sinatra rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sinatra
John Leonard Sinatra, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Sinatra received a commission on December 5, 2019.
Judge Sinatra's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Sinatra, 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
Unless the court has set one, notices of motion should omit return dates.
“Unless the Court previously set one, notices of motion should not contain return dates.”
Motions
Each represented party must provide one courtesy copy of substantive motion papers to chambers when filed.
“Each party represented by counsel shall provide one courtesy copy of substantive motion papers to chambers upon filing.”
Sealing
A sealing request must follow the district’s procedures and include a supporting affidavit explaining why sealing is warranted.
“Consistent with these rules and procedures, Judge Sinatra will not approve sealing requests unless the party seeking sealing provides a supporting affidavit setting forth the reasons a document, or portion of a document, should be sealed.”
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 Sinatra decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hardaway v. Nigrelli, a challenge to New York’s ban on carrying firearms at places of worship, Sinatra found that the state had not shown a sufficiently analogous historical tradition under Bruen and granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against enforcement.
“Ample Supreme Court precedent addressing the individual's right to keep and bear arms -- from Heller and McDonald to its June 2022 decision in Bruen -- dictates that New York's new place of worship restriction is equally unconstitutional. In Bruen, the Court made the Second Amendment test crystal clear: regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations.”
In Social Security appeals, a consulting medical opinion that predates a claimant's documented worsening condition (here, two car accidents causing new spine injuries) is not substantial evidence for an RFC finding, and an ALJ cannot fill that gap with a lay reading of complex objective findings like MRI results.
“Because Dr. Miller's medical opinion, the only opinion in the record, occurred before Plaintiff's car accidents and consequential back injuries, the medical opinion does not consider Plaintiff's worsening condition... the medical opinion was stale and, therefore, does not constitute substantial evidence to support the ALJ's findings.”
Procedural preferences
In Christian v. James, he denied the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment request concerning the public-parks restriction even though he viewed their Second Amendment argument as persuasive, explaining that the Second Circuit’s intervening Antonyuk decision bound him.
“As Antonyuk is written, however, this Court is bound.”
In Diallo v. Lyons, he held that the petitioner fell into the category of people encountered at or near the border for whom da Cunha did not require a bond hearing.
“In da Cunha, the Second Circuit drew a distinction between aliens who 'snuck into' the country and 'evaded' detection for years (ruling that a bond hearing is required) and aliens who were encountered at or near the border (where no bond hearing is required). Here, Petitioner is in the latter category.”
In a Fourth Amendment case, the court disagreed with a magistrate recommendation that the plaintiff lacked standing, then adopted the alternative recommendation to dismiss the federal claim on the merits. The state claims returned to state court after the federal claim was dismissed.
“the Court rejects the R&R's recommendation to remand Gogan's First Cause of Action for lack of standing.”
Cautions
In Patterson v. Ludlow, he dismissed a pro se parole challenge for lack of jurisdiction: absolute immunity barred damages against parole board commissioners, and the plaintiff’s release mooted his request for a new hearing. The plaintiff had not responded to the dismissal motion, but the order grounded dismissal in those jurisdictional defects.
“In light of Patterson’s release and failure to offer any allegations of continued harm or to form a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction in response to Defendants’ motion, his equal protection claim is moot.”
In Imamverdiyev v. Searls, Sinatra denied a habeas petitioner’s recusal motion based on alleged bias in immigration habeas rulings. He found that the cited prior decisions did not establish an objectively reasonable basis to question his impartiality and that the petitioner had shown no personal bias or prejudice.
“A litigant is 'entitled to an unbiased judge; not to a judge of their choosing.' Therefore, '[a] judge is as much obliged not to recuse himself when it is not called for as he is obliged to when it is.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated above and in the decision and order appended as Exhibit A, the Court grants Respondents' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 6) and denies the relief requested in the petition (Dkt. 1) and TRO application (Dkt. 2). The Clerk of Court shall close this case.”
“For all of these reasons, the Court grants Respondents' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 19) and denies the relief requested in the petition.”
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Commissioner's cross motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 15) and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 11). The Clerk of the Court will close this case.”
“DECISION AND ORDER granting 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying 11 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The decision of the Commissioner is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with this decision and order.”
“DECISION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying the Commissioner's 14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The decision of the Commissioner is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with this decision and order.”
“ORDER granting 14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Vacating the Commissioner's decision and Remanding the action for further administrative proceedings.”
“DECISION AND ORDER granting 10 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Commissioner's decision is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Decision and Order.”
“ORDER granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings.”
“For the reasons below, this Court determines that Buczek's arguments on appeal are without merit, and the decision of the Bankruptcy Court will be affirmed... the Court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and, therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor person is denied.”
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED in part, and the Commissioner's cross motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 12) is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“For the reasons stated below, this Court grants the Commissioner's motion and denies Plaintiff's motion.”
“DECISION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting Defendant's 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; the Defendant's final decision is affirmed; the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
His docket includes Social Security appeals, immigration habeas petitions from detainees at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, prisoner civil-rights suits, employment and ADA discrimination claims, consumer-credit and bankruptcy appeals, and high-profile constitutional challenges to state firearms regulation.
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 | 119 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 31 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 53 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 119 | 53 |
| Sep 2025 | 93 | 47 |
| Mar 2025 | 77 | 51 |
| Sep 2024 | 85 | 51 |
| Mar 2024 | 66 | 40 |
| Sep 2023 | 58 | 44 |
| Mar 2023 | 56 | 44 |
| Sep 2022 | 73 | 32 |
| Mar 2022 | 75 | 28 |
| Sep 2021 | 69 | 20 |
| Mar 2021 | 76 | 20 |
| Sep 2020 | 80 | 11 |
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 Sinatra: 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 Sinatra with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sinatra, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sinatra's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace