William Shaw Stickman IV
How Judge Stickman rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Stickman
William Shaw Stickman, IV is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Stickman received a commission on August 5, 2019.
Judge Stickman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Stickman, 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 and proposed orders for ordinary communications with the court.
“communication with the Court shall be in the form of motions, accompanied by proposed orders specifying the relief requested.”
Filing
Email chambers a courtesy copy immediately after filing an emergency or time-sensitive submission.
“Counsel shall provide chambers with electronic courtesy copies of emergency or time sensitive submissions by email”
Discovery
Arrange a telephone status conference before filing a discovery motion, except for a certified emergency.
“No discovery related motions are to be filed until after the conference except in cases of emergency”
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 Stickman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Neyman, Stickman denied the premises-liability defendant’s summary judgment motion because a jury could find that the defendant should have anticipated harm on a wet ramp despite the plaintiff’s awareness of the danger.
“Thus, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sunbelt could have anticipated the harm to Neyman. The Court will deny Sunbelt's motion for summary judgment.”
In Robertson, Stickman enforced a broad forum-selection clause against three workers’ wage claims, including claims against a defendant outside the clause, and dismissed those claims for forum non conveniens.
“The claims of Plaintiff Angel Hernandez and opt-in plaintiffs Scott Bridgeman and Michael Hendrick are dismissed in their entirety for forum non conveniens.”
Procedural preferences
In Deltondo v. School District of Pittsburgh, he overruled objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation after independently reaching the same legal conclusions, and denied the defendants' summary judgment motion.
“The Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Dodge's thorough analysis and her legal conclusions. It has independently reached the same legal conclusions for the reasons expressed in her comprehensive Report and Recommendation.”
In Laurensau, Stickman dismissed the prisoner’s official-capacity claims with prejudice as futile, dismissed several other claims without prejudice, and set a deadline for an amended complaint.
“Plaintiff's official capacity claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as leave to amend would be futile”
Cautions
In United States v. Barnes, Stickman denied an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to the felon-in-possession statute after finding that Barnes’s history showed a danger of misusing firearms.
“The Court holds that Barnes poses a danger of misusing firearms in a way that would endanger others.”
In a freight-loss contract dispute, the court rejected a force majeure defense that did not address the stolen goods and had not been invoked by the contract’s required written notice.
“Evolve neglected to provide written notice of a force majeure event”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CEM-TIR's Motion to Dismiss the Claims of Plaintiffs Hernandez, Bridgeman, and Hendrick (ECF No. 123) is GRANTED. The claims of Plaintiff Angel Hernandez and opt-in plaintiffs Scott Bridgeman and Michael Hendrick are dismissed in their entirety for forum non conveniens.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Barnes's motion will be denied. An Order of Court will follow.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as follows: (1) Plaintiff's official capacity claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as leave to amend would be futile; (2) Plaintiff's claims against Zaken are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ... Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to the personal involvement of Coulehan, Parker, and Buzas”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on exhaustion grounds as to Plaintiff's claims arising from incidents on February 21, 2023, and March 14, 2023, and summary judgment will be entered in favor of Ingram and Fielders. The motion is further GRANTED in that partial summary judgment will be entered in favor of Davis as to Plaintiff's claims arising from June 16, 2023, only.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for (TRO) Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 29) is DENIED”
“his Motion for Default of Judgment for (TRO) Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 34) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“AND NOW, this 25th day of March 2026, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 225) is DENIED.”
“Thus, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sunbelt could have anticipated the harm to Neyman. The Court will deny Sunbelt's motion for summary judgment.”
“The Court holds that Oliver has failed to plead a concrete injury to confer Article III standing. The remaining claim, an alleged violation of WESCA, will be dismissed without prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is DENIED without prejudice as to Corrections Defendants' request to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“On March 30, 2026, Cole filed a Motion Under § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. (ECF No. 82). The Government opposed. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion to Remand or, in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement (ECF No. 25).”
“The Court will deny Comcast's Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 22). An Order of Court will follow.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant OSA’s motion by order of court to follow.”
“Clairton’s motion to dismiss will be granted.”
“Beemac’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.”
“A2A’s motion for judgment on the pleadings will be denied.”
“request to do so will be denied as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed one-month 2023 sample includes criminal, contract, claims against the United States, trademark, family-leave, wage-and-hour, disability, and prisoner civil-rights matters. Many sampled civil cases were referred to mediation and resolved by settlement rather than by a contested dispositive ruling.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 Stickman: 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 Stickman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Stickman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Stickman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace