James L. Graham
How Judge Graham rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Graham
James L. Graham is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Graham received a commission on September 26, 1986. Judge Graham assumed senior status on August 31, 2004.
Judge Graham's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Graham, 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
Filing
Disclose any use of generative AI to prepare a filing, identify the assisted content and platform, and certify source review.
“must submit a declaration disclosing the use of generative AI.”
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 24-02 In Re: Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- U.S. District Court General Order No. 24-05 ↗
- General Order 23-03 In Re: Automatic Sealing and Procedures for Unsealing of Applications for Search Warrants, Pen Registers, Trap and Trace Devices, or Court Orders Under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d). ↗
How Judge Graham decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reviewed excessive-force case, conflicting accounts about resistance and danger prevented qualified-immunity summary judgment. Evidence that makes the reasonableness of force turn on disputed facts is positioned for a jury rather than resolution on the papers.
“There is a significant factual dispute as to whether Burr was resisting arrest and whether he posed a danger to the officers or to others at the scene. Thus, determining the reasonableness of the force Perkins and Tharp used to arrest Burr necessarily requires factual determinations by the jury.”
In a ballot-initiative case, the judge treated access to the signature-gathering process as a protectible First Amendment interest even though the proponents might ultimately fail to collect enough signatures. Showing loss of the opportunity itself supported preliminary relief.
“Plaintiffs ultimately might not gather enough signatures, but they have a protectible First Amendment interest in having the opportunity to try.”
Procedural preferences
Civil-rights complaints must connect each named defendant to specific conduct. Allegations that defendants acted collectively, without identifying each person's involvement, did not survive judgment on the pleadings in the reviewed case.
“Plaintiffs have failed to identify a single action specifically taken by any one of the moving defendants. Plaintiff’s entire complaint alleges that ‘defendants’ committed each act.”
In the reviewed campaign-finance case, the judge focused the likelihood-of-success analysis on the specific statute challenged. Reliance on a decision about coordinated expenditures did not establish likely success when the complaint challenged the rule governing which party account may fund candidate contributions.
“This suit, however, does not present a challenge to any limits on coordinated expenditures.”
Cautions
Continuing to litigate claims after the opposing party supplied the practical solution can support personal fee sanctions when the remaining proceedings are meritless and multiply the case.
“Any non-frivolous controversy concerning negligence or negligent misrepresentation ended then, and further proceedings served simply to unreasonably multiply the proceedings.”
A future-profits expert should ground the opinion in market size, customers, pricing, margins, competition, and the claimant's own financial ability to enter the market. Forecasts untethered to that analysis risk exclusion.
“It would be only from a rigorous analysis of the market that plaintiff, in the absence of proof of actual lost customers or contracts, could establish with reasonable certainty what its profits would have been.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“As to Count 1 of Plaintiff Shaw’s Complaint, alleging malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendant Wozniak’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, because Shaw cannot show a deprivation of constitutional liberty sufficient to sustain such claim. As to Counts 2-9 ... the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction ... and therefore ORDERS, sua sponte, that such claims be DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“the motion for summary judgment of defendants Sibbalds, Pierce, Dickerson, and Cobb (Doc. 95) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter final judgment for all defendants.”
“This Court GRANTS Mount Vernon’s motion for summary judgment on Burr’s Section 1983 claim ... This Court DENIES Defendants’ Perkins’s and Tharp’s motion for summary judgment on Burr’s Fourth Amendment claims and on Burr’s state law claims of assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress ... This Court GRANTS Perkins’s and Tharp’s motion for summary judgment on Burr’s state law claims for defamation and false imprisonment”
“defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 67) is GRANTED in its entirety and this action is hereby dismissed.”
“With these considerations in mind and based on the foregoing reasons, Arrow's motion for sanctions (doc. 146) is conditionally GRANTED. Plaintiffs' attorney shall be personally liable to the movants for all attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred between January 11, 2011 and April 6, 2012.”
“Accordingly, because the plaintiffs failed to specifically allege how each of the moving defendants was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations, judgment on the pleadings is proper. ... [T]he motions for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendant Greg Nohe (doc. 24), Joshua Staats (doc. 26), Jerry Peters (doc. 28), Scott Parks (doc. 30) and Christine Roberts (doc. 50) are GRANTED. If plaintiffs wish to seek leave to file an amended complaint, they shall do so within 20 days from the date hereof, otherwise the court will direct the clerk to enter final judgment for the moving defendants.”
“The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. The Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 33) is DENIED and DISMISSED.”
“The Report and Recommendation, ECF 12, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.”
“Accordingly, the court adopts the report and recommendation (Doc. 14). The motions to dismiss (Docs. 6 and 11) are granted in part and denied in part. The habeas claim is dismissed, and the Bivens claim will be allowed to proceed.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, (Doc. 27), except as to Plaintiffs' claim regarding Rule 4.3(C).”
“Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Order [Doc #204] (ECF No. 206) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's First and Seventh Causes of Action against Defendants Michelle Lovette, Cynthia Ricker, and Melanie Fultz are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Court also amends its November 20, 2020 Order (ECF No. 169) to GRANT summary judgment to Defendant Jacob Hays on the equal protection portion of Plaintiff's Second Legal Claim (Am. Compl. ¶ 75) and to Defendant Aaron Sowers on the equal protection portions of Plaintiff's Seventh and Eighth Legal Claims (Id. at ¶¶ 80–81). These claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for default judgment for a sum certain (doc. 15) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall enter a Final Default Judgment for Plaintiff Stifel Financial Corporation and against Defendant Michael J. Iannarino in the amount of Three Hundred and Thirty Thousand Dollars ($330,000.00), plus interest on that amount at a rate of 12% per annum beginning on October 16, 2018.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
A December 2022 filing sample includes civil-rights, fair-housing and accommodation, consumer-warranty, trademark, stockholder and fiduciary, and federal criminal matters. Duration figures use six terminated civil cases and exclude criminal and pending cases.
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 | 10 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 7 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 10 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 16 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 12 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 12 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 25 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 12 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 9 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 16 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 8 | 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 Southern District of Ohio, not for Judge Graham: 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 | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,037 | 7.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 810 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 343 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,137 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,153 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,311 | 12.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,287 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,012 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,561 | 41.6 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 Graham with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Graham, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Graham's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace