Julia K. Munley
How Judge Munley rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Munley
Julia Kathleen Munley is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Munley received a commission on November 7, 2023.
Judge Munley's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Munley, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
File motions in limine and supporting briefs 14 days before the pretrial conference; responses are due seven days before it.
“All motions in limine including those involving the challenge of expert witness testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and supporting briefs are due fourteen (14) days prior to the pretrial conference. Briefs in opposition to the motions in limine, including Daubert motions, are due seven (7) days prior to the pretrial conference.”
Motions
Limit in limine briefs to six double spaced pages.
“The court will not accept briefs longer than six (6) pages, double spaced.”
Discovery
Raise a discovery dispute by telephone with chambers; written discovery motions require court approval.
“discovery disputes must be raised through a telephone call to chambers as no written discovery motions are permitted without court approval.”
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Munley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an age-discrimination pleading challenge, the judge held that a plaintiff need not allege her replacements' exact ages, following recent Third Circuit authority that a 'sufficiently younger' allegation suffices at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
“A fair reading of plaintiff's complaint permits the inference that plaintiff, the oldest editor on staff, was replaced by sufficiently 'younger' editors who absorbed her duties when she was terminated just shy of her 65th birthday. She need not plead her replacements' exact age.”
In an ADA associational-discrimination claim, the judge drew a sharp line between a retaliation theory based on the plaintiff's own complaints about treatment and one based on a demand that the employer accommodate a disabled relative, allowing only the former to proceed.
“The ADA association provision, 42 U.S.C. Section 12112(b)(4), does not obligate employers to accommodate the schedule of an employee with a disabled relative.”
Procedural preferences
Where a pro se plaintiff neither opposed pending motions nor responded to the court's show-cause orders, the judge adopted a magistrate judge's Poulis-factors recommendation and treated the pending motions to dismiss as moot rather than reaching their merits.
“Magistrate Judge Schwab cogently applied the Poulis factors in recommending the dismissal of plaintiff's action for: 1) failure to file briefs in opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss; and 2) failure to respond to court orders relative to filing those briefs.”
Cautions
In one immigration-detention habeas case, Munley treated the petitioner's refusal to cooperate with a scheduled third-country removal as extending the statutory removal period. Because removal remained foreseeable and the continued detention was not longer than reasonably necessary, she denied relief.
“Here, the detention in question does not exceed a period reasonably necessary to secure the petitioner’s removal. Petitioner actively impeded his own removal.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.”
“The R&R (Doc. 41) is ADOPTED in its entirety; Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute; Defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint (Docs. 16, 36) are DISMISSED as moot.”
“For the reasons set forth above, GCSOM's motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the motion will be granted as to plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim in Count VIII of the complaint. Count VIII will be dismissed with prejudice. Otherwise, the motion will be denied. Plaintiff will be afforded fourteen (14) days to file an amended complaint regarding the breach of contract claim in Count VII.”
“3) Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 58) is GRANTED; and 4) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.”
“1) Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 2) Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice with regard to: a) plaintiff's claim for punitive damages against the Borough of Girardville as part of any cause of action pursuant to Section 1983; b) plaintiff's claims for statutory and liquidated damages; c) plaintiff's Section 1981 claim against the Borough of Girardville; d) plaintiff's Section 1983 claims arising out of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; and e) plaintiff's Title VII claims against the individual defendants; 3) Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED in all other respects;”
“1) Defendants City of Scranton and Mayor Paige Cognetti's motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 25) is DENIED;”
“2) Defendant Local Lodge No. 2462, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO's motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 24) is DENIED;”
“Defendants Scranton School District and Shannon Rucker's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Brittney Lee's amended complaint (Doc. 11) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 10) is denied.”
“The Defendants' motion to vacate default judgment and to dismiss (Doc. 16) is granted in part. It is GRANTED in that the default judgment is hereby VACATED, and it is DENIED with regard to dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint;”
“the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 31) is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff.”
“2) Defendant Clancy's motion to dismiss, (Doc. 22), is GRANTED and the claims asserted against her are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Defendant Muldrow’s motion to dismiss, (Doc. 25), is GRANTED;”
“4) Plaintiff's motion for default judgment regarding Count II of the complaint (Doc. 36) is GRANTED as to Defendant Marx NJ Group, LLC and Defendant Joseph Marx; 5) Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against Defendants Marx NJ Group, LLC and Joseph Marx, jointly, severally, and individually, in the amount of $15,503,494.65;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled window spans prisoner civil-rights/Eighth Amendment claims, immigration and federal habeas petitions, employment discrimination, and diversity contract/insurance matters. Several sampled dockets resolved by voluntary dismissal, mootness, or settlement before a dispositive motion issued.
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 | 14 |
| 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 | 20 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 14 | 20 |
| Sep 2025 | 12 | 16 |
| Mar 2025 | 24 | 21 |
| Sep 2024 | 28 | 26 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 30 |
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 Middle District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Munley: 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 | 1,590 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 660 | 6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 901 | 10.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 21 | 39.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,590 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,535 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,370 | 11 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,550 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,420 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,410 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,611 | 11 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 Munley with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Munley, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Munley's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace