Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro
How Judge Alejandro rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Alejandro
Nitza Ileana Quiñones Alejandro is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Quiñones Alejandro received a commission on June 19, 2013.
Judge Alejandro's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Alejandro's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Alejandro decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an insurance-coverage case, she found that the alleged injury arose from conduct identified in a policy exclusion despite negligence allegations against Harmony.
“Despite Plaintiff’s assertion of negligence claims against Harmony, the ultimate injury connected to these claims (the death of Ms. Fidalgo) is alleged to be caused by the ‘actual or alleged act, error, omission of . . . David Frankel.’”
In a product case, she found a sufficient connection among Pennsylvania, the moving defendants’ forum contacts, and the plaintiffs’ claims to support specific jurisdiction.
“As such, there exists a sufficient affiliation between Pennsylvania, Moving Defendants' contacts with this forum, and Plaintiffs claims.”
Procedural preferences
In Stokes’s civil-rights case, she granted dismissal of the due-process and conspiracy counts only as to theories tied to alleged fabrication of evidence in the perjury prosecution.
“The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes’ § 1983 claims for deprivation of liberty without due process and for civil rights conspiracy (Counts II and III), but only with respect to those claims related to Defendant’s alleged participation in the fabrication of evidence used in the perjury prosecution against Franklin Lee;”
Cautions
In Shiloh, Quiñones Alejandro declined to compel records from entities that the government had not shown were under the defendant’s control.
“such records and information fall outside the scope of Rule 34(a)(1).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Motion is GRANTED. ... The FTCA's limited waiver of the United States' sovereign immunity does not extend to Plaintiff's claims against the United States, and, thus, those claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied. ... there exists a sufficient affiliation between Pennsylvania, Moving Defendants' contacts with this forum, and Plaintiff's claims.”
“Defendants' alternative motion to transfer venue is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.”
“The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes' malicious prosecution claims filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Pennsylvania state law (Counts I and VII); The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes' § 1983 claims for deprivation of liberty without due process and for civil rights conspiracy (Counts II and III), but only with respect to those claims related to Defendant's alleged participation in the fabrication of evidence used in the perjury prosecution against Franklin Lee; and The motion to dismiss is DENIED in all other respects.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss is granted and this matter is dismissed. ... because Plaintiff's bad faith claim is premised solely on the allegation that Allied World had no basis to deny coverage, the claim fails as a matter of law since this Court has determined that Allied World had no duty to defend.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, insofar as it has established Defendant's liability on its TCPA claim. Accordingly, a separate Judgment Order will be entered in Plaintiff's favor against Defendant in the amount of $2,000; Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED in all other respects, including its request that Plaintiff be awarded treble damages and a permanent injunction”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant, and against Plaintiff.”
“Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, [ECF 21], is DENIED”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment, [ECF 20], is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on all of Plaintiffs' claims.”
“Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's breach of contract claim premised on the deposition disclosure; and ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's breach of contract claim premised on the voicemail disclosure.”
“Elliott's motion for summary judgment is granted as to all of Williams' claims premised on Aaliyah's Heartbroken; (2) Elliott's motion for summary judgment is denied as to Williams' claims premised on the SISTA Songs”
“Williams' motion for summary judgment is denied as it pertains to his claims.”
“upon consideration of Defendant's motion for summary judgment, [34] ... it is hereby ORDERED ... that the motion is GRANTED.”
“the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the claims asserted against Cumberland are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 190 days (N = 10).
The sampled 2019 docket includes frequent federal and state habeas matters, along with civil-rights, insurance, contract, consumer-communications, False Claims Act, fraud, and other diversity cases.
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 | 26 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 23 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 26 | 23 |
| Sep 2025 | 24 | 19 |
| Mar 2025 | 25 | 14 |
| Sep 2024 | 20 | 19 |
| Mar 2024 | 16 | 15 |
| Sep 2023 | 8 | 16 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 16 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 5 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 5 |
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 Alejandro: 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 Alejandro with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Alejandro, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Alejandro's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace