Pamela Ann Barker
How Judge Barker rules, drawn from 44 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Barker
Pamela Ann Barker is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Barker received a commission on June 18, 2019.
Judge Barker's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Barker, 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.
- Standing Order ↗
- Report Party Planning Standard ↗
- Civil Trial Order ↗
- Civil Bench Trial Order ↗
- Class Actions Report of Parties Planning ↗
- CMC Order standard ↗
- CMC Scheduling Order Standard ↗
- Criminal Pretrial Order ↗
- Discovery Dispute Order ↗
- Pro Se Case Management Order ↗
- Pro Se Case Management Scheduling Order ↗
- CMC Order Patent ↗
- CMC Scheduling Order Patent ↗
- Report of Parties' Planning Meeting Patent Rules Appendix B ↗
- CMC Scheduling Order ERISA ↗
- CMC Order ERISA ↗
- CMC Order class actions ↗
- ERISA Report of Party Planning ↗
Key rules
Motions
A partial motion to dismiss does not excuse an answer or compliance with discovery.
“The filing of a partial motion to dismiss will not excuse the filing of an answer, compliance with discovery, or any other rules or orders.”
Discovery
A proposed protective order that deviates from Appendix L must be sent to chambers as a redlined Word file.
“If any party seeks a protective order that deviates from Appendix L, the party must email a redlined Word version of the revisions they propose to Appendix L to [email protected].”
Discovery
A discovery meet and confer must take place in person, by video, or by telephone.
“The meet and confer must be conducted in person, by video conference, or by telephone conference.”
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 Barker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a suit about a Kia Sportage involved in a collision, Barker dismissed the design-defect claim because the plaintiff did not plausibly allege that the vehicle's design caused her injuries.
“dismissal is warranted for the additional reason that Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the design of the Kia Sportage involved in the August 2022 collision was a 'but for' or 'cause-in-fact' of her injuries.”
In E.P.'s removed case, Barker retained jurisdiction over the declaratory-judgment claim after finding that the court had to retain at least part of the complaint.
“Because this Court must retain jurisdiction over at least part of E.P.'s Complaint, this factor weighs in favor of retaining jurisdiction over E.P.'s Declaratory Judgment claim as well.”
Procedural preferences
Reconsideration is reserved for clear error of law, new evidence, intervening law, or manifest injustice: not relitigation; she declined to revisit a Rule 9(b)/OCSPA dismissal absent any of these.
“the Detricks have not shown a clear error of law, presented new evidence, identified an intervening change in controlling law, or established that reconsideration prevents a manifest injustice.”
Cautions
In Buntura v. Ford Motor Co., Barker dismissed the plaintiff’s third suit over a withdrawn job offer and required leave before another filing in that court. She also certified that an appeal from the dismissal could not be taken in good faith.
“Plaintiff is permanently enjoined from filing any new action in this Court without first seeking and obtaining leave of court.”
In Jacobs, the court treated the plaintiff’s failure to attend a deposition after prior warning, without seeking a protective order, as willful bad faith supporting severe sanctions.
“Court has no hesitation in finding that Jacobs’s conduct was willful, in bad faith, and contumacious.”
In a teacher’s coworker retaliation suit, she granted summary judgment after the school district investigated complaints and limited contact, finding insufficient evidence that it tolerated retaliation or responded unreasonably.
“Based on the above, the Court finds that Shrader has failed to come forward with sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant ‘condoned, tolerated, or encouraged [Oberhauser’s] acts of retaliation’ or responded to Shrader’s complaints ‘so inadequately that the response manifests indifference or unreasonableness under the circumstances.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED to the limited extent set forth herein.”
“Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) is granted and this case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Accordingly, and for all the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. No. 63) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, this Court grants Defendant's Motion.”
“Defendants' Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice.”
“For all the reasons set forth above, Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings pending Appeal (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, and for all of the reasons set forth above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for Right to a Jury Trial (Doc. No. 105) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as follows. Counts Two through Five are dismissed. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Counts One, Six, Seven, and Eight, and accordingly, those counts are dismissed without prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Therefore, the Court hereby VACATES the Entry of Default against Defendant Kirkwood (Doc. No. 12) and DENIES the Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Kirkwood (Doc. No. 13.)”
“Plaintiff International Watchman, Inc.'s Renewed Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
An earlier oldest-first sample covers twelve terminated matters filed from 2014 through 2017, including cases inherited after reassignment. An additional ten terminated civil matters filed in January 2020 were reviewed for motion outcomes. These purposive slices cannot establish the judge's overall caseload 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 | 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 6 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Northern District of Ohio, not for Judge Barker: 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 Barker with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Barker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Barker's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace