Joy Flowers Conti
How Judge Conti rules, drawn from 45 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Conti
Joy Flowers Conti is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Conti received a commission on July 31, 2002. Judge Conti assumed senior status on December 6, 2018.
Judge Conti's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Conti, 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
Contacting chambers
File a motion when seeking action from Judge Conti; letter briefs are not accepted.
“If a party desires Judge Conti to take some action, the party must file a motion. Judge Conti does not accept letter briefs.”
Filing
Supply a marked and tabbed courtesy copy if evidentiary materials exceed 25 pages.
“If the evidentiary materials are voluminous, i.e., more than 25 pages, a courtesy copy of the materials appropriately marked and tabbed should be furnished to the judge’s chambers.”
Motions
File a separate brief with each motion.
“A motion must consist of two documents, consisting of a motion stating the party's request and a separate brief containing the factual and legal grounds for the request.”
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 Conti decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
For a noncitizen already present in the country rather than seeking admission at a port of entry, she applied the discretionary-detention framework in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and ordered an individualized bond hearing.
“The court joins the other judges of this district court in holding that § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b), applies to aliens similarly situated to Petitioner, who are not seeking admission at a port of entry but rather are already present in the country.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the motion by the Graham plaintiffs to be relieved of the deadlines in the DMO (Misc. No. 21-1230, ECF No. 3113; crossfiled at Civ. No. 22-224, ECF No. 84), will be DENIED.”
“the court finds there is substantial evidence in the record to affirm the ALJ's decision. The court will affirm the decision of the Commissioner.”
“Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11) which was denied as moot because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Supplemental Rules for Social Security do not contemplate that kind of motion.”
“Here there was no showing an exception applied, and the motion for alternative service must be denied without prejudice.”
Pro se prisoner deliberate-indifference case. Adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court sua sponte dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) without prejudice to seeking leave to amend. This was a screening disposition rather than a ruling on a party motion. Even with no objections filed, she independently reviewed for clear error before adopting; the complaint conceded timely medical attention, defeating deliberate indifference.
“the court is satisfied that the R&R contains no clear error and will therefore accept the recommendation of the magistrate judge that Wexford's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29) be granted. The court observes that the dismissal of count III will be with prejudice; and the dismissal of the remaining counts will be without prejudice.”
PLRA prisoner screening under Sections 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation; the complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court held that an inmate who files a Rule 41(a) voluntary-dismissal notice after an adverse recommendation but before the district court's disposition cannot thereby avoid a Section 1915(g) strike: the court retains power to dismiss under PLRA screening, so the dismissal counts as a strike. This was a screening disposition rather than a ruling on a party motion.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED and that Defendant City of Pittsburgh is dismissed with prejudice.”
“the Motion to Preclude the Proffered Expert Testimony of Graeme Norval (ECF No. 86) will be GRANTED IN PART”
“the Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Mark Gleason and Gleason & Associates (ECF No. 89) will be GRANTED”
“Thus, the motion to compel (ECF No. 65) will be denied as moot.”
“The motion for sanctions (ECF No. 83) will be denied for the reasons stated herein.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to remand this case to the state court (ECF No. 9) is granted.”
“The court will grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 26) and deny plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 23) for the reasons set forth below.”
“The court will deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 7) and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 10).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The 2021-2024 sample is dominated by personal-injury product-liability cases in the Philips CPAP multidistrict litigation, many of which resolve through coordinated settlements rather than individual dispositive motions. Outside that litigation, the sample includes Social Security, criminal, post-conviction, intellectual-property, commercial, and prisoner civil-rights matters.
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 | 150 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 150 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 208 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 165 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 7 | 2 |
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 Western District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Conti: 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 | 1,965 | 6.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 665 | 4.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 659 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 632 | 8.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,965 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,871 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,021 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,988 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,891 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,939 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,766 | 6.9 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 Conti with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Conti, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Conti's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace