Karen Elizabeth Schreier
How Judge Schreier rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Schreier
Karen E. Schreier is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Schreier received a commission on July 7, 1999. Judge Schreier assumed senior status on May 15, 2024.
Judge Schreier's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Schreier'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).
- STANDING ORDER 25-03 - In the Matter of Procedures for the Access and Management of Non-Public Documents in Criminal Cases ↗
- Standing Order 22-06 Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines in Criminal Cases ↗
- Standing Order 23-02 Revising the Procedure for Compassionate Release Motions Under the First Step Act ↗
- Standing Order 24-01 - Disclosure of Jail Incident Reports or Similar Documents ↗
How Judge Schreier decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Jim Hawk Truck-Trailers of Sioux Falls, Inc. v. Crossroads Trailer Sales & Service, Inc., Schreier dismissed tort claims resting on alleged trade-secret misuse as displaced by the UTSA but allowed a distinct duty-of-loyalty claim to proceed in part.
“Allowing a plaintiff to plead a claim using different labels in order to avoid the displacement provision of the UTSA would render the statute meaningless.”
Procedural preferences
In Augustine v. Schreurs, she deemed the defendant's supported facts admitted when the pro se plaintiff did not controvert them, then granted summary judgment after finding no personal involvement by the defendant.
“Augustine did not object to Schreurs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ... so the court deems those statements to be admitted.”
Cautions
Liberal construction for pro se litigants does not relax the substantive standard: pro se prisoners still must show a genuine issue of material fact under Rule 56 and specific facts (not conclusions) to defeat dismissal.
“the summary judgment standard set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure remains applicable to prisoners proceeding pro se.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“That Defendant Schreurs' motion for summary judgment (Docket 49) is granted.”
“Cowherd's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 14) is denied”
“Leidholt's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket 18) is granted”
“Leidholt's Motion to Dismiss (Docket 26) is denied as moot.”
“ORDERED that the mechanics' motion to dismiss (Docket 43) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Klaudt's motion for summary judgment (Docket 16) is denied.”
“That Boysen's motion for summary judgment (Docket 20) is granted.”
“That Boysen's motion to stay discovery (Docket 18) is denied as moot.”
“That Thornton's motion to subpoena video footage from the Sioux Falls State Penitentiary North (Docket 25) is denied as moot.”
“That Thornton's motion for appointment of counsel (Docket 28) is denied.”
“That Ferris's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket 2) is granted.”
“That Ferris's motion to appoint counsel (Docket 5) is denied.”
“That Ferris's motion to amend/correct title (Docket 6) is denied.”
“Hook’s motion for temporary restraining order (Docket 3) is granted.”
“That Williams’s motion for reconsideration (Docket 28) is denied.”
“That defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 20) is granted.”
“That Williams’s motion for judgment (Docket 27) is denied as moot.”
“That Williams’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket 31) is denied as moot.”
“ORDERED that E&I’s motion to reconsider the court’s decision in Docket 60 is DENIED;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that E&I’s motion requesting Liberty supply an expert report for Mattingly’s proposed testimony as outlined in his expert witness disclosures and E&I’s alternative motion for the court to limit Mattingly’s testimony as solely a fact witness are both DENIED;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that E&I’s motion to compel is DENIED.”
“that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 121) is granted in part and denied in part;”
“Robinson’s motion to dismiss (Docket 5) is granted”
“Sweetbridge’s motion to transfer (Docket 12) to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut is granted.”
“Minnesota Office’s motion (Docket 34) to amend the Complaint (Docket 1) is granted.”
“Park West’s motion (Docket 27) to amend the Answer (Docket 16) is denied as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
As a senior judge of a small district she still carries a mixed civil/criminal/prisoner docket across all four S.D. divisions. The enumerated sample skews to recent pending filings, so it reflects current intake rather than career-long mix.
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 | 7 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 7 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
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 United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, not for Judge Schreier: 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 | 236 | 10.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 76 | 11 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 151 | 8.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 236 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 248 | 11.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 222 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 220 | 12.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 197 | 13.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 216 | 11.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 233 | 10.8 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 Schreier with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Schreier, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Schreier's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace