John J. McConnell, Jr.
How Judge McConnell rules, drawn from 44 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McConnell
John James McConnell, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge McConnell received a commission on May 6, 2011.
Judge McConnell's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge McConnell's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 McConnell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a TRO-enforcement dispute, the judge read a prior injunction's language literally against the government and rejected an agency's narrower interpretation of its own compliance obligations, ordering immediate restoration of the paused funds.
“The plain language of the TRO entered in this case prohibits all categorical pauses or freezes in obligations or disbursements based on the OMB Directive or based on the President’s 2025 Executive Orders.”
Procedural preferences
In consolidated pharmacy litigation, the court deferred both sides’ summary judgment motions until limited discovery could establish diversity jurisdiction. It allowed the parties to renew their motions after the jurisdictional record developed.
“The Court denies both motions without prejudice. The parties will be permitted to refile and/or amend their motions once”
Cautions
In an employment-discipline suit, the judge required specific comparator evidence to sustain a selective-treatment claim; general assertions that other employees avoided discipline, without matching facts, were not enough to survive summary judgment.
“Mr. Verdecchia has not proffered sufficient evidence that the identified employees engaged in conduct of comparable seriousness...or had a similarly poor disciplinary record.”
In a student Title IX suit about a voyeurism incident, the court dismissed the federal claim after finding the complaint did not plausibly allege pervasive harassment or an unreasonable institutional response. The remaining state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice after the court declined supplemental jurisdiction.
“without the required showing of ‘pervasiveness’ or allegations of URI’s unreasonable response, Jane does not state a plausible Title IX claim”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Plaintiff States’ Motion for Enforcement of the Temporary Restraining Order (‘TRO’) (ECF No. 66) is GRANTED.”
“As a result, Brown’s Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to Mr. Gomes’ FEPA accommodation claim is denied. ... Brown’s Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to Mr. Gomes’ FEPA retaliation claim is denied. ... Brown’s Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to Mr. Gomes’ RICRA claim is denied. ... the Court DENIES Brown’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 5.”
“The Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner is GRANTED and the Defendant’s Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner is DENIED.”
“the Defendant’s Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner is DENIED.”
“For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 70.”
“The Court GRANTS RIMI’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. ECF No. 87. Counts I, II, and III are DISMISSED.”
“Mr. Morowtiz cannot establish that he is entitled to the disallowed deductions on his Schedule C where there is no clear evidence that he operated a law practice separate from the corporation. Accordingly, this Court GRANTS the Government's motion for summary judgment. ECF. No.7.”
“Because the Court finds that Ms. Harney did not reside at the Bradford Property, it was not an insured location under the policy and therefore Homesite properly denied coverage for the fire loss. The Court GRANTS Defendant Homesite Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 34.”
“The Court finds that summary judgment for Brown is appropriate on all remaining counts (Counts I, II, III, IX, XI). The Court GRANTS Brown’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 78.”
“The Court GRANTS CVS's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 27.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 75) and DENIES Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 84).”
“Because Mr. Li fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), this Court GRANTS Ms. Su’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF No. 60. This case is dismissed.”
“The Plaintiffs are correct that the motion is not ripe and premature because the issue of whether there is insurance coverage is not resolved. The Court Denies Defendants Estate of Yonah Kohn’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings. ECF No. 42.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 393 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 17 days (N = 11).
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 29 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 29 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 15 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 14 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 13 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 16 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 16 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 14 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 10 |
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 District of Rhode Island, not for Judge McConnell: 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 | 484 | 8.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 214 | 9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 247 | 7.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 19 | 30.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 484 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 483 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 490 | 10 months |
| Sep 2022 | 498 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 464 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 525 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 569 | 9.2 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 McConnell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McConnell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McConnell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace