Stephanie Lou Haines
How Judge Haines rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Haines
Stephanie Lou Haines is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Haines received a commission on September 30, 2019.
Judge Haines's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Haines, 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
Use motions with proposed orders instead of letters to chambers.
“Communications with the Court shall be in the form of motions (rather than letters to Chambers), accompanied by proposed orders specifying the relief requested.”
Motions
Submit a separate proposed order with every motion.
“Each and every motion shall be accompanied by a separate proposed Order of Court.”
Conferences
Fax a request to appear by telephone at least two days before a conference.
“Attorneys and parties shall fax a request to participate by telephone to (814) 691-6001 at least two (2) days prior to the scheduled conference.”
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 Haines decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Herdman v. L-J-L Trucking, Inc., Haines denied a timeliness dismissal because the documents established when the EEOC issued its notices but not when the plaintiff received them, the date that starts the 90-day period.
“the August 30 date of issuance set forth in the three EEOC dismissal and notice of rights forms is insufficient in and of itself to start the 90-day clock, as it is the date of receipt that controls”
The court granted preliminary relief for detained litigants who could not attend state criminal hearings remotely after finding likely success, irreparable harm, favorable equities, and public interest.
“The Court finds Plaintiffs have satisfied all four elements warranting injunctive relief.”
Procedural preferences
In Herdman v. L-J-L Trucking, Inc., Haines struck the term 'whistleblower' and a punitive-damages request but denied the rest of the motion to strike.
“Defendant's motion to strike hereby is granted only as to the use in Plaintiffs' complaint of the term 'whistleblower(s),' and as to Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages under the Rehabilitation Act. In all other respects, Defendant's motion to strike hereby is denied”
Cautions
In Smith v. Smith Transport, Inc., she granted the employer's partial motion to dismiss Count III with prejudice while the remaining claims continued.
“Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED with prejudice”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) hereby is denied”
“Defendant's motion to strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) hereby is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's motion to strike hereby is granted only as to the use in Plaintiffs' complaint of the term 'whistleblower(s),' and as to Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages under the Rehabilitation Act. In all other respects, Defendant's motion to strike hereby is denied”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... The Court enters Declaratory Judgment in favor of Princeton. Princeton is not required to defend or indemnify Laurel in the Underlying Litigation.”
“Defendant Laurel's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ... The Court enters Declaratory Judgment in part as to MedPro. It is not required to indemnify Laurel but is liable to defend Laurel as to certain claims.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED with prejudice”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) [Doc. 34] filed by Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., hereby is granted; and, IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that this case hereby is dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the partial motion to dismiss filed by Defendants M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust N.A. [Doc. 53] hereby is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent Defendant Wilmington Trust N.A. seeks dismissal from this suit, the motion is granted and Wilmington Trust N.A. hereby is dismissed as a Defendant in this action. In all other respects, M&T Bank's partial motion to dismiss is denied”
“IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Joseph A. Varacallo, C Warehouse LLC, and Developac, Inc. [Doc. 56], hereby is denied”
“IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the partial motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Frank A. Villella [Doc. 58] hereby is denied”
“IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Clearfield County Industrial Development Authority [Doc. 61] hereby is denied”
“the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion for Order to Show Cause and Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order at ECF No. 2.”
“Based on the above, Odiase's Motion to Compel (ECF 46) is DENIED.”
“The search of Mr. Waulk's person, the buccal swab, and the search of the cell phone did not violate Mr. Waulk's Fourth Amendment right. Accordingly, his Motion to Suppress Evidence (ECF No. 221) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motions to suppress wiretap evidence [Doc. 992] and motion to suppress (search warrant for residence) [Doc. 994] have been denied, and as more fully stated in said Opinion.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's emergency motion to reconsider detention in light of the reemergence of COVID-19 in the Allegheny County Jail [Doc. 193] hereby is denied.”
“Upon the Court having found Defendant State Farm did not establish federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court (ECF No. 6) will be GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed Johnstown Division matters include employment discrimination, civil rights, product liability, insurance and employee-benefit disputes, consumer-credit cases, bankruptcy appeals, and a recent increase in immigration-detention habeas petitions. Some older cases were reassigned to Haines after she joined the court in 2019.
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 | 12 |
| 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 | 11 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 12 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 29 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 15 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 13 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 8 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 10 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 11 | 0 |
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 Haines: 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 Haines with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Haines, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Haines's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace