Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.
How Judge Leeson rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Leeson
Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Leeson received a commission on December 5, 2014.
Judge Leeson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Leeson, 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 ↗
- Joint Report by Counsel to the Court of Rule 26(f) Meeting ↗
- Order Governing Electronic Discovery ↗
- Settlement Conference Policies and Procedures ↗
- Consent to Continuance of Criminal Trial ↗
Key rules
Filing
Do not send courtesy copies unless the court requires them.
“Courtesy copies should not be provided to chambers unless specifically required by the Court.”
Motions
Include a certificate of concurrence or non-concurrence with every motion.
“All motions shall be accompanied by a Certificate of Concurrence or Non-Concurrence.”
Motions
Limit reply briefs to ten pages and file them within seven days after opposition service.
“A reply brief is not to exceed ten (10) pages and is to address only issues raised in opposition to the motion, without repeating arguments included in the initial brief. Parties shall file a reply brief no later than seven (7) days after the opposition is served.”
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 Leeson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In this case, he granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
Cautions
In Tkachev v. McShane, Leeson dismissed the petitioner’s motion to enforce and ordered that the immigration habeas action remain closed.
“Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce, ECF No. 16, is DISMISSED.”
In Hegde, a lost consulting opportunity and alleged weekly income loss did not establish irreparable harm for emergency hiring relief; the plaintiff also did not show a likelihood of success. The combined TRO and injunction request was denied.
“Hegde’s economic loss is insufficient to allege irreparable harm.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 74 - Granted ... After weighing all the Poulis factors, the Court dismisses the above-captioned action for House's failure to prosecute.”
“Motion to Enforce, ECF No. 76 - Dismissed ... Smith unnecessarily filed a motion to enforce the October 18, 2022 Order. ... This motion did not restart the clock for House to respond to the motion to dismiss.”
“The Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: A. Counts II and VII are dismissed with prejudice. B. The Motion to Dismiss is denied in all other respects.”
“The Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 12, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... DENIED with respect to Counts I, II, III, and VI. ... GRANTED with respect to Counts IV and V. ... Count IV (Declaratory Relief - Reimbursement) and Count V (Reimbursement) are DISMISSED with prejudice. Leave to amend is not warranted.”
“The motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12, is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, without prejudice ... The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED. Burgess's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. ... Burgess shall file an amended complaint on or before August 26, 2024.”
“The motion to consolidate is DENIED without prejudice. ... The motion may be submitted again for consideration should any of Burgess's claims proceed as amended.”
“Defendant's Motion to dismiss Cherkasky's claims of discrimination is GRANTED; Cherkasky's claims of discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and constructive termination are DISMISSED with prejudice. ... Defendant's Motion to dismiss Cherkasky's claims of retaliation is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Counts II and III; ... GRANTED with respect to Count IV insofar as it brings claims for harassment and retaliation; ... DENIED with respect to Count I; ... DENIED with respect to Count IV insofar as it brings a claim for discrimination.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all counts. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.”
“1. The Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: A. The request to dismiss Counts I, II, and III is GRANTED. Counts I, II, and III, only, are DISMISSED with prejudice. B. The request to dismiss Count IV is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, is DENIED.”
“1. Defendant Alles's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, ECF No. 40, is DENIED.”
“2. Defendants Seltzer and the City of Allentown's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, ECF No. 41, is DENIED.”
“3. Defendants Barzev, Brett, and City of Allentown's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, ECF No. 45, is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part ... D. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count Four is GRANTED, and Count Four is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“1. The Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16, is GRANTED. All claims against the individual defendants Roberts, Keefer, and Jarabeck are dismissed with prejudice. ... Count I (Sunshine Act) is dismissed without prejudice to be refiled in the appropriate state court. ... 2. The Amended Complaint, ECF No. 13, is DISMISSED with prejudice. 3. This case is CLOSED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 33, is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 32 and 34, are GRANTED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in Defendants' favor and against Plaintiffs on all remaining Counts.”
“Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 32 and 34, are GRANTED.”
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 | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Leeson: 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 Leeson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Leeson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Leeson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace