Susan Rose Paradise Baxter
How Judge Baxter rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Baxter
Susan Paradise Baxter is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Baxter received a commission on September 10, 2018.
Judge Baxter's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Baxter, 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
Send correspondence to Judge Baxter only if she requests or approves it.
“Counsel are not to send correspondence to Judge Baxter, unless she specifically requests or approves the same.”
Filing
Do not deliver paper courtesy copies to chambers.
“no paper courtesy copies should be delivered to Chambers.”
Motions
File a separate proposed order with every motion, specifying the relief sought.
“each and every motion shall be accompanied by a separate proposed Order of Court.”
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 Baxter decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an auto-insurance bad-faith case, Baxter allowed discovery where the insurer’s motion attacked the truth of alleged medical-record production rather than the legal sufficiency of the complaint.
“the complaint presents a plausible claim for bad faith that should proceed to discovery.”
Procedural preferences
Construes removal jurisdiction strictly and resolves doubts in favor of remand. She remanded a state-court eviction removed without co-defendant unanimity and without any federal question.
“Removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.”
In this case, she adopted a recommendation and granted the DOC defendants’ dismissal motion in part, including dismissal without prejudice of the Eighth Amendment claim against Wisniewski and Clark.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 72] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows: 1. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Wisniewski and Clark, and such claim is DISMISSED, without prejudice”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based upon the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment in favor of Shell Energy Holding GP LLC.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 85) and Defendant Zupsic's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 87) are GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commonwealth Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 76] is DENIED, without prejudice, as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to remand [ECF No. 6] is granted.”
Prisoner Section 1983 case dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute after a Poulis six-factor analysis. The released pro se plaintiff repeatedly failed to respond to two pending defense summary-judgment motions despite multiple show-cause orders. Baxter did not reach those motions on the merits, and the order does not state prejudice. The order states: 'the Court will dismiss this case, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), based upon Plaintiff's failure to prosecute his claims.' The ruling shows that Baxter will dismiss a dormant pro se case when lesser sanctions would be futile.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Medical Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 67] is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's First Amendment access to courts against such Defendants, and such claim is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice; however, the Medical Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED in all other respects.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 72] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows: 1. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Wisniewski and Clark, and such claim is DISMISSED, without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to amend such claim to correct the deficiencies noted in the R&R within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. ... 2. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's First Amendment access to courts claim against Defendant Smock and Plaintiff's ADA/Rehab Act claims against Defendants Clark, Smock, and Silva, in their official capacities, and such claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; and 3. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 26] is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference to medical needs claim (Count II) and Plaintiff's state law assault and battery claim (part of Count III), and such claims are DISMISSED, with prejudice; and the DOC Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's failure to protect claim (Count I) is GRANTED, without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to amend his complaint to attempt to state a claim that Defendants failed to protect him from assault perpetrated by other prison officials, if he so desires and is able to do so.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Wellpath's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 34] is DENIED AS MOOT, in light of Plaintiff's withdrawal of all claims against said Defendant.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 42] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that final judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hunter's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 54] is denied.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Lorah and Bogart [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED and Plaintiff's remaining claim of malicious prosecution is dismissed, without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to commence a new action restating the same claim against the same Defendants in the event his criminal proceedings are finally resolved in his favor.”
The court screened this self-represented in forma pauperis complaint against a U.S. Senator and others without a pending dismissal motion. It found that the filings stated no claim against the named defendant and that judges named in later filings had absolute judicial immunity. Leave to amend was denied as futile given the plaintiff's history of similarly deficient filings and an existing vexatious-litigant order. Because this was a court-initiated screening decision rather than a party motion, it is not included in motion-outcome counts. The order states: 'Because the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional or statutory violation based on any of the factual statements in any of his filings in this case, leave to amend is futile.'
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 65] is GRANTED and judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all claims in this case.”
“IT IS ORDERED, this 22nd day of November, 2024, that the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss, ECF No. [25], is GRANTED, and the following claims shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed 2021-2024 matters include prisoner civil-rights, habeas, criminal, personal-injury, defamation, oil-and-gas contract, employment, and administrative-review cases. Many civil matters are referred to magistrate judges, and the sample also includes a cluster of serial self-represented filings from 2024 and 2025.
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 Baxter: 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 Baxter with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Baxter, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Baxter's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace