Christopher C. Conner
How Judge Conner rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Conner no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Conner
Christopher C. Conner was a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Conner received a commission on July 29, 2002. Judge Conner retired on January 17, 2025.
How Judge Conner decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a multidistrict-litigation removal dispute, he denied remand after finding the plaintiffs breached a tolling agreement and secretly refiled suit while representing to the defense they would not: procedural gamesmanship weighed heavily against them even though the underlying 'snap removal' tactic was itself permissible.
“The only conclusion to be reached on this record is that plaintiffs engaged in Janus-faced gamesmanship, contractually representing to defendants that no lawsuit would be filed for at least another month, while preparing and filing that lawsuit just three days later.”
In an FMLA case, he found that placing an employee on continuous leave against her wishes, when she had requested and was entitled to ongoing intermittent leave, can itself be a form of interference with FMLA rights: an employer cannot substitute one type of statutory leave for another without the employee's consent.
“By placing [the employee] on continuous FMLA leave, [the employer] necessarily denied [the employee's] concurrent request for intermittent leave. The nature of continuous leave pretermits an employee's ability to take intermittent leave.”
Procedural preferences
In Carpenter v. Klopstoski, he granted Crawford Manufacturing’s dismissal motion as unopposed after the plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition brief, treating the claims against that defendant as abandoned.
“Crawford's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. 79) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is DEEMED unopposed, see L.R. 7.6, and GRANTED.”
In Mastrella v. DeJoy, Conner dismissed an inadequately pleaded discrimination claim with leave to amend and gave the plaintiff a final opportunity to cure factual defects in his pleading. He distinguished those defects from claims that could not be repaired as a matter of law.
“To the extent Mastrella’s claims are factually rather than legally deficient, we will grant Mastrella a final opportunity to amend his pleading, consistent with this memorandum.”
In United States v. Coles, he denied a second reconsideration motion because it was untimely and identified no meritorious basis to revisit the earlier ruling.
“the court concluding that Coles’ motion is untimely and also that Coles fails to identify any meritorious basis for reconsideration of our September 8, 2017 memorandum and order”
Cautions
In the Sterling removal dispute, he denied remand after finding the plaintiffs breached a tolling agreement and then amended their complaint in federal court; he cited fairness and judicial economy under those circumstances.
“[T]o remand this action would offend fundamental principles of fairness, equity, and judicial economy.”
In Neely’s Section 2254 case, he denied habeas relief because Neely did not establish a basis under Martinez to excuse the procedural default of his ineffective assistance claims.
“We decline to address the merits of these claims because Neely has not established a basis to excuse his default; accordingly, we will deny Neely's petition for habeas relief.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
IFP screening order: 'Plaintiff's application (Doc. 7) to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED... Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint...' Rule 8/20 pleading deficiencies identified; not a ruling on a party motion.
“The government's motion to dismiss the charges against defendant is GRANTED. All charges against defendant are DISMISSED.”
“Crawford's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. 79) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is DEEMED unopposed, see L.R. 7.6, and GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE Crawford as a named defendant.”
“Defendants' motion (Doc. 10) to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Ryan's motion (Doc. 7) to dismiss the complaint is DENIED.”
“Ryan's motion (Doc. 7) for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice to her right to file such motion at a more appropriate time.”
A purely procedural briefing-format order permitting plaintiffs to file a single comprehensive brief in opposition to defendants' seventeen separate summary-judgment motions; it does not rule on the merits of any motion.
“The Gerbers' motion (Doc. 33) for partial summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice.”
“U.S. Bank's motion (Doc. 38) for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice.”
“The report of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 111) is ADOPTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 83) is GRANTED.”
“The petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Rodriguez-Francisco's petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 is DENIED.”
“The court will deny plaintiffs' motion to remand.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Sampled dockets are dominated by pro se prisoner civil-rights suits under Sec. 1983 (conditions of confinement, COVID-19 exposure, property confiscation), interspersed with employment discrimination (Title VII, PHRA), Social Security appeals, and general civil actions: consistent with a general-caseload district judge who, as former Chief Judge, also carried a substantial share of the court's prisoner and pro se docket.
- Most pro se prisoner cases in this sample were resolved on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal involvement of the named defendants, a recurring dispositive theory in this court.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Conner was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2024.
| 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 | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 8 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 13 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 18 |
| Sep 2021 | 13 | 15 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 20 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 20 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Conner no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.