Jeffery Paul Hopkins
How Judge Hopkins rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hopkins
Jeffery Paul Hopkins is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Hopkins received a commission on December 16, 2022.
Judge Hopkins's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hopkins, 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.
- Final Pretrial Order (Required Form) ↗
- Standing Order Governing Civil Cases ↗
- Rule 26(f) Report (Required Form) ↗
- Criminal Preliminary Pretrial Order ↗
- Standing Order Governing Criminal Cases ↗
- Standing Order Governing the Use of Generative AI ↗
Key rules
Discovery
File the preliminary Rule 26(f) discovery plan at least seven days before the preliminary pretrial conference, using Judge Hopkins’ form.
“but not less than seven days before the Preliminary Pretrial Conference”
Trial
Email the proposed final pretrial order in Word format to chambers at least seven days before the conference; do not file it with the clerk.
“This proposed Final Pretrial Order shall be emailed in Word format to [email protected] at least seven days prior to the Final Pretrial Conference. It should not be filed with the Clerk’s Office.”
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 Hopkins decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a family-business religious-discrimination case, he let the employee’s mixed-motive Title VII claim reach trial after treating statements about his resistance to the company’s faith-based charitable giving as circumstantial evidence that religion played a part in his termination.
“In order to survive summary judgment on a mixed-motive claim, Joe need only produce evidence sufficient to convince a jury that his religious non-conformity was a motivating factor for his discharge—not necessarily the only factor.”
Procedural preferences
In a school-district case, he set aside clerk’s entries of default because the defendants had at least potentially meritorious defenses and the record showed delay and carelessness without evidence of deliberate evasion.
“At most, the record here supports only carelessness, lack of professionalism, or a failure to act diligently; it does not, based on the exhibits provided, establish the high standard of an intent to thwart this action or engage in reckless disregard for this Court’s proceedings.”
Cautions
In an employment-contract dispute over unused paid time off, he allowed the contract claim to proceed but dismissed the alternative unjust-enrichment claim because the undisputed contracts governed the same benefits.
“Because Plaintiff alleges that PTO benefits are explicitly covered by the 2019 and 2021 Employment Contracts, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim must fail as a matter of law.”
In a drug-conspiracy prosecution, he preserved evidence from the searches and traffic stops but suppressed the defendant’s interview statements made after an unambiguous request for counsel.
“Any statements made after Stephen Wheeler invoked that right must therefore be suppressed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19). Specifically, the Court GRANTS the Motion (Doc. 19) only with respect to Counts II, III, and V and DISMISSES those claims WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) in all other respects. The case shall proceed as to Counts I and IV against Defendants.”
“JTM's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 89) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ... All of Joe's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE except for Joe's mixed-motive Title VII religious discrimination claim against JTM.”
“the Maas Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 90) is GRANTED in its entirety.”
“the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 27, 30) are DENIED, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“Plaintiff's Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 27, 30) are DENIED”
“the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety ... the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13).”
“Defendant Jane Strasser's first Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. See Crawford v. Tilley, 15 F.4th 752, 759 (6th Cir. 2021) ('The general rule is that filing an amended complaint moots pending motions to dismiss.')”
“the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant UCMC as a party to this action. Doc. 8. ... Defendant University of Cincinnati Medical Center, LLC is dismissed as a party to this civil action WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to refiling”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant Strasser's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) and DISMISSES Count VI WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Court GRANTS IN PART, DENIES IN PART Defendant UC's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) and DISMISSES Counts I, II, and IV WITH PREJUDICE. Counts III and V remain viable claims against UC.”
“For these reasons, the Defendant's Motion (Doc. 90) is DENIED.”
“the Wheeler Defendants' Motion (Doc. 55, 66) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Wheeler Defendants are not entitled to a Franks hearing, nor to suppression of evidence seized during the execution of the warrants or during the traffic stops. However, any statements that Stephen Wheeler made after invoking his right to counsel in the post-arrest interview on February 7, 2023, must be suppressed.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) be DENIED because Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.”
“Plaintiff's additional motion for summary judgment (Doc. 21) be DENIED AS MOOT given that the motion was intended for another federal civil action.”
In forma pauperis screening dismissal via unopposed R&R adoption (MJ Litkovitz); plaintiff had previously been warned by a colleague on the court that further frivolous filings could result in a vexatious-litigator designation.
The court adopted a screening recommendation under Section 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissing most claims with prejudice while allowing identified constitutional and state-law claims to proceed. It separately overruled objections to service-related orders as moot.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The fixed 2023 civil cohort contains prisoner and civil-rights matters, employment claims, insurance and interpleader, and other civil litigation. This earliest-filed slice is descriptive and is not a courtwide caseload estimate.
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 Hopkins: 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 Hopkins with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hopkins, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hopkins's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace