James Ray Knepp II
How Judge Knepp rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Knepp
James Ray Knepp, II is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Knepp received a commission on November 13, 2020.
Judge Knepp's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Knepp, 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.
- Case Management Conference Notice and Report of Parties ↗
- Case Management Conference Order ↗
- Settlement Scheduling Order ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
The confidential settlement statement must be emailed to chambers and not filed with the clerk.
“The settlement statement shall not be filed with the clerk, but shall be emailed to [email protected].”
Conferences
Local counsel must attend the case management conference in person or arrange telephone participation with chambers.
“Local counsel must attend the CMC in person; if unable to attend in person, local counsel may make arrangements to participate by telephone by contacting chambers at 419-213-5570.”
Conferences
Parties with ultimate settlement authority must personally attend the settlement conference.
“Parties with ultimate settlement authority must be personally present.”
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).
How Judge Knepp decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In this case, he granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.”
Procedural preferences
In a case involving Baker and Arnett, he granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed further proceedings as to those plaintiffs pending arbitration.
“ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 6) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; FURTHER ORDERED that further proceedings in this matter, as to Plaintiffs Baker and Arnett, be STAYED pending resolution of arbitration.”
In this case, he granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied the plaintiff’s competing request for default judgment.
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED”
In a jail medical-care case, he denied leave to file a sur-reply because the proposed brief repeated the opposition and addressed no new argument in the defense reply.
“The proposed sur-reply merely reiterates arguments Plaintiff raised in opposition and does not address new arguments raised for the first time in Defendants’ reply. Therefore, the Court finds a sur-reply not appropriate and denies Plaintiff's motion for leave.”
Cautions
In this case, he denied the plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the judgment.
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend (Doc. 15) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.”
In the reviewed prisoner civil rights case, the court rejected an amendment adding defendants when the proposed complaint itself showed those claims were outside the limitations period.
“amendment would be futile.”
In one property-manager dismissal ruling, the court declined to build a claim-specific preclusion argument that the movant had presented only collectively.
“Fourmidable attacks Plaintiffs’ claims collectively and does not develop a claim-by-claim preclusion argument.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 41) be, and the same hereby is, granted; Plaintiff is taxed with $2,693.50 in costs.”
“ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 6) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; FURTHER ORDERED that further proceedings in this matter, as to Plaintiffs Baker and Arnett, be STAYED pending resolution of arbitration.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Instanter (Doc. 11) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Issuance of Official Final Decision (Doc. 14) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend (Doc. 15) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED”
“FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 10) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED”
“Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 55) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED”
“Joint Motion to Stay (Doc. 65), be and the same hereby is, GRANTED and this case is STAYED until June 30, 2026”
“the Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED as set forth specifically herein”
“Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders (Docs. 3, 4, 12, 20, 21, 22) be, and the same hereby are, DENIED as moot”
“Rule 56(d) Motion (Doc. 31) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED”
“Motion to Convert (Doc. 12) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in part to the extent is seeks to dismiss Defendants Danbury Township, Michael Scherer, United States of America, and David Kasulones and DENIED in all other respects”
“Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11), be and the same hereby is, GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of the claims against Defendants Barbara Distel and Marc Kudley”
“Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9), be and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot”
“ORDERED that Judge Knapp’s R&R (Doc. 15) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED as the Order of this Court, and the Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED as set forth therein and herein;”
“The Court therefore denies Petitioner’s request to stay.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 419 days (N = 11).
The reviewed 2021 Toledo filings include Social Security appeals, employment disputes under Title VII, the ADA, the FMLA, the ADEA, and the FLSA, prisoner and other civil-rights cases, state habeas petitions, diversity tort actions, and contract disputes. Magistrate Judge Darrell A. Clay appears in the sampled matters, including for settlement conferences.
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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Ohio, not for Judge Knepp: 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 | 2,048 | 7.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 394 | 3.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,035 | 5.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 607 | 11.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 18 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,048 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,008 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,137 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,330 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,432 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,788 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,158 | 9.9 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 Knepp with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Knepp, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Knepp's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace