Amy M. Baggio
How Judge Baggio rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Baggio
Amy Margaret Baggio is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Baggio received a commission on August 22, 2024.
Judge Baggio's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Baggio, 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.
- United States District Judge Amy Baggio ↗
- Civil Jury Trial Management Order ↗
- Tier 2 Protective Order Template ↗
- Tier 2 Protective Order Template (Marked-up) ↗
- Civil Court Trial Management Order ↗
- Criminal Jury Trial Management Order ↗
- Example 1 - Jury Instructions ↗
- Example 2 - Joint List of Exhibits and Objections ↗
- Example 3 - Joint Ruling Chart ↗
- Example 4 - Exhibit List ↗
Key rules
Filing
Notify the courtroom deputy by email if filing within 48 hours of a hearing.
“If you file something within 48 hours of an upcoming hearing, you must email the Courtroom Deputy and let them know that you have done so and/or send the Courtroom Deputy a courtesy copy by email.”
Sealing
Use Judge Baggio’s specific Tier 2 protective-order template.
“Judge Baggio uses a modified version of the Tier 2 stipulated protective order template”
Trial
The civil jury trial management order specifies which trial documents to file and provide to the court.
“The charts below specify which documents must be filed on CM/ECF and/or provided to the Court.”
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 Baggio decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Fair Housing Act emergency-relief case, Baggio found the plaintiff had not shown likely success because she failed to establish two elements of the accommodation claim.
“Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because she has not shown elements (3) or (4).”
Procedural preferences
In a preliminary-injunction dispute, Baggio applied the requirement that this extraordinary remedy be supported by a clear showing of entitlement.
“A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.’”
Cautions
In Rote v. New Jersey Judiciary, Baggio rejected the plaintiff's objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation because they repeated arguments already considered below. She adopted the recommendation and granted the defendants' dismissal motions.
“Objections to a magistrate judge's F&R 'are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF 9) and dismisses Plaintiff's ORS 659A.030 failure-to-accommodate claim with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF 3) is DENIED.”
“Defendant New Jersey Judiciary's Motion to Dismiss [25] is GRANTED, Oregon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [29] is GRANTED, Defendant Zweizig's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's federal claims [30] is GRANTED ... Defendant Gloucester County's Motion to Dismiss [49] is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default [36] is DENIED”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend [63] is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the Hotbox Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [44] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 3) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF 1-1) is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF 53, is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's claims related to the 2020 Email and violations of Items 105 and 303. Defendants' Motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
“Because Plaintiff's ORS 659A.030 discrimination claim is time-barred, it is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendant Teeny Foods Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment [27] is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [22] is GRANTED, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [24] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 48) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Robert F. Held [120] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Plaintiff's motion to remand to Multnomah County Circuit Court (ECF 7) is GRANTED and his motion for attorney fees (ECF 7) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Reflects assignment mix rather than measured outcomes.
- Baggio took the federal bench in August 2024, so her docket is a blend of her own newly filed 2026 cases (still pending) and older matters reassigned to her from predecessor judges that she carried to judgment in 2024-2025, including a Section 1983 prisoner civil-rights case she tried to a jury in November 2024 and a state habeas petition she denied.
- Case durations are not reported because the terminated cases were filed years before her commission and span predecessor judges, so a filing-to-termination span would not reflect her own time on the case.
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 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 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 United States District Court for the District of Oregon, not for Judge Baggio: 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 | 1,647 | 9.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 300 | 5.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,316 | 10.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 9 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 22 | 33.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,647 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,633 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,472 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,620 | 13.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,501 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,536 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,596 | 11.6 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 Baggio with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Baggio, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Baggio's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace