Kezia O. L. Taylor
How Judge Taylor rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Taylor
Kezia O. L. Taylor was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania in December 2023. Before joining the bench, she worked in civil litigation and as an assistant United States attorney. She earned degrees from Howard University and the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
Judge Taylor's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Taylor, 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.
- Practices and Procedures ↗
- Mediation Proceedings ↗
- Example of Responding Party’s Concise Statement of Material Facts ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Do not send letters, motions, or briefs directly to Judge Taylor without her request or approval.
“Counsel shall not send letters, motions or briefs to Judge Taylor unless she specifically requests or approves this practice.”
Motions
For routine motions, confer about consent and attach a Certificate of Conferral.
“The moving party must attach a Certificate of Conferral as an exhibit to the motion.”
Motions
Rule 12 motions without a Certificate of Conferral will be stricken.
“motions that do not contain a Certificate of Conferral will be stricken.”
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 Taylor decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a prisoner excessive-force case, Taylor recommended denying summary judgment where a silent video did not conclusively resolve whether an officer’s actions were justified and the competing accounts raised a question for the jury.
“The video included with Defendant’s summary judgment documents does not provide incontrovertible proof that Defendant did not use excessive force against Plaintiff.”
Cautions
In a business dispute, Taylor recommended dismissing abuse-of-process counterclaims that attacked the opposing pleading as false; she required misuse of the legal process itself.
“The common defense that a plaintiff’s allegations and claims are wrong, or even false, does not give rise to a claim for abuse of process.”
In a property demolition case, Taylor recommended summary judgment for the city where the plaintiff did not connect an employee’s alleged failure to send notices to a city policy or ratification by a final policymaker.
“Furthermore, even if, assuming arguendo, Mr. Dubnansky did fail to provide the requisite Notices, Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence that his failure to do so was ratified by a city policymaker.”
In a prisoner’s religious-accommodation suit, Taylor recommended rejecting a civil-rights conspiracy claim because allegations that two employees followed prison policy did not establish an agreement to cause harm.
“Their compliance with DOC policy undermines Plaintiff’s ability to show that Defendants Ayar and Dittman acted with the intent to cause him harm.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Report and Recommendation recommends that the pending Motions to Dismiss be granted, and that the claims set forth in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.”
“The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 123) filed by Defendant Christina Ferraro ... and the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 124) filed by Defendants Officer Steven Maritz, Officer Pierre DeFelice, and Lieutenant Safar will be granted, and the claims set forth in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice, as amendment would be futile.”
“Judge Taylor's February 14, 2025 Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court grant, with prejudice, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) filed by Defendants, UPMC, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, and John/Jane Doe ('UPMC Defendants') ... It is further ordered that UPMC Defendants and County Defendants Motions to Dismiss are granted.”
“... and grant, with prejudice, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) filed by Allegheny County and Jacob Porter ('County Defendants').”
“The Motion to Dismiss is granted as to any claim for unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, or false imprisonment, and any such claims are dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Plaintiff's malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims, and such claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. ... Any attempt to amend the Fourth Amended Complaint as to Plaintiff's claims under federal law would be futile, and these claims are thus dismissed with prejudice.”
“The R&R recommends that Bingaman's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 by a Person in State Custody (the 'Petition') ... be dismissed as moot ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bingaman's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 ... is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“Bingaman's Motion for Permission to File Supplemental Pleading Pursuant to Rule 15(d) ... be denied without prejudice to Bingaman's right to initiate new habeas proceedings challenging the Board's most recent decision denying him parole.”
Prisoner-screening Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), rather than a ruling on a party motion. Taylor recommended dismissing a self-represented inmate's Section 1983 excessive-force complaint for failure to state a claim. She concluded that an identical claim against the same defendants had ended in summary judgment for failure to exhaust, that a later grievance did not cure the PLRA exhaustion failure, and that the claim was time-barred; she also found amendment futile. The available record does not show whether Judge Cercone adopted the recommendation.
Rule 41(b) failure-to-prosecute recommendation, rather than a ruling on a party's merits motion. Taylor recommended dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with her show-cause order. Judge Colville adopted the recommendation in full, dismissed the case with prejudice, and dismissed the defendants' pending summary-judgment motion as moot.
Rule 41(b) failure-to-prosecute recommendation, rather than a ruling on a party motion. Taylor recommended dismissal after the plaintiff stopped prosecuting the case. Judge Colville adopted the recommendation in full, found that the plaintiff's apparent abandonment made adjudication impossible, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
“For the reasons set forth below, the Amended Petition will be denied and a certificate of appealability will also be denied.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Petition will be denied and a certificate of appealability will also be denied.”
“For the following reasons, the Petition will be dismissed since it was untimely filed and because all the claims in it are procedurally defaulted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Taylor's referred matters remain listed under the assigning district judges, limiting court-wide enumeration. The reviewed cases are weighted toward self-represented prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, with some non-prisoner cases, and include screening, failure-to-prosecute, and merits dismissal decisions.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 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 Taylor: 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 Taylor with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Taylor, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Taylor's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace