Mark A. Kearney
How Judge Kearney rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kearney
Mark A. Kearney is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Kearney received a commission on December 4, 2014.
Judge Kearney's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kearney, 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 ↗
- Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting ↗
- Exhibit Record ↗
- Speedy Trial Waiver Form ↗
Key rules
Filing
Attach a screenshot as an exhibit when citing a website in a filing.
“Filings referencing a website shall attach a screenshot of the cited website reference as an exhibit.”
Filing
Provide courtesy copies only for filings over 35 pages, required Rule 56 papers, or when chambers requests them.
“Courtesy copies shall only be provided to Chambers for a filing over thirty-five pages and as required under these Policies (e.g. Rule 56 papers) or otherwise requested by Chambers.”
Conferences
Do not record or create AI summaries of off-the-record telephone or video conferences.
“Participants in telephonic or video conferences and their agents may not record or otherwise create an artificial intelligence summary of off-the-record proceedings”
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 Kearney decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Miley, Kearney dismissed legally foreclosed claims with prejudice and allowed amendment of a separate race discrimination claim.
“Defendant's Motion (ECF Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED: 1. Plaintiffs § 1981, § 1983 retaliation and state law claims are dismissed with prejudice; and, 2. Plaintiffs § 1983 race discrimination Monell claim is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend”
In a records-access dispute, the court required the agency to explain its search methods and redactions before renewed summary judgment motions.
“We deny the cross-motions for summary judgment. We require the National Guard Bureau and Department of Defense to clarify the adequacy of their search both in completeness and method, the propriety of their claimed exemptions through amended Vaughn indices, including their obligation to provide specificity on segregability.”
Cautions
In Vandegrift, Kearney denied summary judgment because a jury needed to weigh witness credibility on disputed facts.
“it is ORDERED Defendant's Motion (ECF Doc. No. 31) is DENIED as there are genuine issues of material fact requiring our jury's evaluating witness credibility.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED. There is no genuine issue of material fact concerning the interpretation of the exclusions in the insurance policy purchased by Defendants.”
“The City of Philadelphia's Motion to Dismiss the § 1983 claims against it is GRANTED and Count II against the City of Philadelphia is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendant's Motion (ECF Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED: 1. Plaintiffs § 1981, § 1983 retaliation and state law claims are dismissed with prejudice; and, 2. Plaintiffs § 1983 race discrimination Monell claim is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend”
“it is ORDERED Defendant's Motion (ECF Doc. No. 31) is DENIED as there are genuine issues of material fact requiring our jury's evaluating witness credibility.”
“it is ORDERED Defendants' Motion for summary judgment (ECF Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED as there are no genuine issues of material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
“it is ORDERED the Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion to dismiss (ECF 15) is GRANTED in part requiring: 1. We dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against [the Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania State Police, official capacity, and 1983 false arrest/false imprisonment, Fourteenth Amendment malicious prosecution and state law claims]; 2. Plaintiff may proceed on his Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution civil rights claim”
“it is ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to dismiss (ECF 18) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part requiring we: 1. DISMISS with prejudice claims for deliberate indifference under Title III (Count XIII); 2. DISMISS claims with leave to amend as warranted under Rule 11 ... [Counts VIII-XII, V-VII, IV]”
“We deny the United States' motion to dismiss because Delgado has sufficiently stated a plausible claim to relief.”
“We deny the United States' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment, because Delgado's claim is not barred by the two-year statute of limitations under the Act. The discovery rule is a question of fact.”
“The national firm and a few of its almost 350 lawyers sued here now move to dismiss the Philadelphia firm's claims before discovery. We grant their motion in part and deny in part.”
“We deny the Officer Defendants' and the City's motion to dismiss. We will now learn, among other things, why an officer would take and then post this tragedy on social media and if the Law allows Ms. Brookins a damages recovery.”
“We decline to certify a proposed class of ranking officers who self-report overtime”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Kearney's civil docket in the Philadelphia and Allentown divisions includes a substantial number of cases resolved through administrative termination. The reviewed records also show frequent scheduling and status orders, use of special masters, and early summary-judgment and trial deadlines.
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Kearney: 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 Kearney with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kearney, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kearney's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace