Jeffrey L. Schmehl
How Judge Schmehl rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Schmehl
Jeffrey L. Schmehl is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. President Barack Obama appointed him, and he received his commission on June 25, 2013. He previously served as a judge of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas.
Judge Schmehl's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Schmehl, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Policies and Procedures ↗
- Order Governing Electronic Discovery ↗
- Joint Status Report Pursuant to Rule 26(f) ↗
Key rules
Filing
Do not send courtesy copies unless exhibits are voluminous or the case is sealed; ask chambers first.
“Courtesy copies shall not be provided to chambers unless the exhibits are voluminous or the case is sealed.”
Motions
Limit briefs and memoranda to 25 pages absent leave.
“Any brief or memorandum should be limited to twenty-five pages.”
Discovery
Seek a telephone conference before filing a discovery motion.
“the party contemplating a motion shall seek a telephone conference with the court before filing any motion.”
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 8, 2026).
- Standing Order on Procedure for Case Opening ↗
- Standing Order on Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order on Access and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order on Filing Procedures in Alien Detainee Cases ↗
- Second Amended Standing Order on Guilty Pleas and Sentencing ↗
- Standing Order on Electronic Document Submission for Unrepresented Litigants ↗
- Standing Procedural Order for Cases Seeking Social Security Review ↗
- Superseding Standing Order on Procedural Matters in Pro Se Civil and Habeas Cases ↗
- Standing Order on Electronic Access to Civil and Criminal Transcripts ↗
How Judge Schmehl decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a prisoner civil rights case, the court let the medical indifference claim against one doctor proceed while dismissing the other challenged claims.
“The motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Dr. Letizio is DENIED.”
Procedural preferences
In one dismissal order, the court allowed another amended complaint after removing the defective pleading.
“The First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a Second Amended Complaint.”
In an employment-related discovery dispute, Schmehl accepted a magistrate judge’s recommendation in part, sustained the Secretary of Labor’s work-product objection, and ordered selected materials produced.
“The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED IN PART;”
Cautions
The court dismissed several civil rights claims with prejudice and expressly refused another amendment for them.
“No leave to amend is granted on the dismissed claims;”
In discovery, the court required production of responsive material only to the extent the subpoena recipient possessed or controlled it.
“the Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office shall produce, to the extent in its possession, custody, or control, the materials responsive to Plaintiff’s subpoena;”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Gregory Manco’s motions to modify the protective order, Dkt. Nos. 222, 223, are DENIED”
“Saint Joseph’s University and Cheryl McConnell’s motion for contempt, Dkt. No. 227, is DENIED”
“The motion to file a sur-reply, Dkt. No. 238, is GRANTED”
“Defendant Huner’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants Wellpath and Dr. Letizio’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Wellpath’s Motion to Dismiss based on bankruptcy proceedings (ECF No. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“The City of Philadelphia’s motion is GRANTED”
“The moving individual defendants’ motion is GRANTED”
“Defendant John Ashcraft’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. 23] is GRANTED.”
“Defendants Keller Kline, Andrea Naugle and Lehigh County’s Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [Doc. 24] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for extension and leave to file excess pages [Doc. 27] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to file Exhibits E and F under seal [Doc. 28] is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Gregory J. Morris’ motion to dismiss the original complaint [Doc. 8] is DENIED as moot.”
“Defendants Keller Kline, Andrea Naugle and Lehigh County’s motion to dismiss the original complaint [Doc. 13] is DENIED as moot.”
“Defendant John Ashcraft’s motion to dismiss the original complaint [Doc. 15] is DENIED as moot.”
“the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 223, is DENIED;”
“the Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 318, is DENIED;”
“the Motion to Strike, ECF No. 265, is DENIED as moot.”
“The Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint [Doc. 57] is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED.”
“the Motion to Quash, ECF No. 41, is DENIED;”
“the Motion to Compel, ECF No. 45, is GRANTED;”
“The Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint [Doc. 23] is DENIED.”
“HUD’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED”
“Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. 10] is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 58 days (N = 7).
The sampled cases include employment, insurance, consumer credit, habeas, personal injury, and recent pending civil matters. The small, uneven selection does not establish a 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 | 16 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 13 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 16 | 13 |
| Sep 2025 | 16 | 11 |
| Mar 2025 | 17 | 16 |
| Sep 2024 | 13 | 15 |
| Mar 2024 | 28 | 9 |
| Sep 2023 | 34 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 13 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 6 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 10 | 7 |
| Mar 2021 | 13 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 7 |
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 Eastern District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Schmehl: 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 | 5,730 | 5.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,952 | 3.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,834 | 4.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 898 | 10 months |
| Closed during trial | 46 | 17.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 5,730 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,200 | 4.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,595 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 5,221 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 5,245 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 4,686 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,374 | 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 Schmehl with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Schmehl, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Schmehl's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace