Eli Jeremy Richardson
How Judge Richardson rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Richardson
Eli Jeremy Richardson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Richardson received a commission on October 18, 2018.
Judge Richardson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Richardson, 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
Filing
Do not send chamber copies of filings unless Richardson requests them.
“Judge Richardson does not want chamber copies of filings, unless he requests them.”
Discovery
When Richardson is called on to resolve a discovery dispute, hold a joint telephone conference with the court before filing a discovery motion.
“When called upon to rule on such matters, Judge Richardson requires joint telephone conferences with the Court prior to the filing of motions to compel or other discovery motions.”
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 Richardson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Equal-protection / due-process: a law that turns on a minor's sex and that bars parents from directing their child's medical care draws heightened (intermediate) scrutiny, and the State must carry the burden of showing the law is substantially related to an important interest: in Skrmetti the State failed that burden, so plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success.
“the Court finds that Defendants have not met their burden of showing that SB1 is substantially related to an important government interest as to survive intermediate scrutiny. ... Plaintiffs have therefore demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their due process claim.”
Section 1983 deliberate-indifference: requires non-conclusory facts tying the specific defendant/policy to the particular constitutional injury: generalized corporate-wide understaffing or 'profit over safety' allegations, even backed by audits and other lawsuits, do not plausibly plead causation or subjective awareness (applying Caraway v. CoreCivic).
“Plaintiffs here, much like in Caraway, fail to allege non-conclusory facts demonstrating that CoreCivic’s staffing policies directly caused Allen’s death.”
Procedural preferences
In Cook v. CoreCivic, Richardson dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, and dismissed those claims without prejudice.
“the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and Plaintiffs' state-law claims will be DISMISSED without prejudice.”
In Cook v. CoreCivic, Richardson declined to credit a serious allegation in the complaint because the plaintiffs had not pleaded facts making it plausible.
“The Court declines to accept this fact as true because Plaintiffs have not alleged enough factual matter to make this serious allegation (or murder) plausible.”
In City of Murfreesboro, Richardson warned that opaque briefing on jurisdictional motions can lead to summary denial or to arguments being left unconsidered.
“Failure to do so may lead to summary denial of these motions and of any relief requested thereto, or to the Court declining to consider arguments raised in the papers filed with respect to these motions.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 54) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED.”
“In light of the Court’s findings provided herein, the Motion at Doc. No. 21 will be granted in part and denied in part.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 60). Plaintiffs' federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. ... Plaintiffs' state-law claims will be DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant's Motion is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED.”
“the Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Defendant Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., is hereby GRANTED and this matter is compelled to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.”
“Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the Motion is granted in that the Arbitration Plaintiffs shall proceed to arbitration to resolve their claims as requested by Defendant, and the Motion is denied in that the claims of all Plaintiffs are hereby STAYED pending arbitration (contrary to Defendant's suggestion that the Arbitration Plaintiffs' claims be dismissed and the Non-Arbitration Plaintiffs' claims be allowed to proceed).”
“This action is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety.”
“Petitioner's Petition (Doc. No. 1) and Supplemental Petition (Doc. No. 9) will be DENIED.”
“Petitioner's motion to reconsider (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED, and this case is STAYED pending further Order of the Court.”
“Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 45) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 57) will be DENIED in its entirety”
“Defendants' Motion (Doc. No. 60) will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, i.e., granted as to Counts III and IV and denied as to Count I. Plaintiff's claim on Count I will proceed to trial.”
“the Motion (Doc. No. 129) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 372 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 16 days (N = 4).
The sample includes constitutional challenges to Tennessee laws involving gender-affirming care, social-media regulation, and drug pricing, along with False Claims Act, prisoner civil-rights, post-conviction, employment, trademark, and federal criminal matters.
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 | 49 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 3 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 29 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 49 | 29 |
| Sep 2025 | 58 | 23 |
| Mar 2025 | 54 | 16 |
| Sep 2024 | 57 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 38 | 15 |
| Sep 2023 | 24 | 17 |
| Mar 2023 | 27 | 18 |
| Sep 2022 | 32 | 24 |
| Mar 2022 | 45 | 18 |
| Sep 2021 | 28 | 17 |
| Mar 2021 | 28 | 14 |
| Sep 2020 | 34 | 11 |
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 Middle District of Tennessee, not for Judge Richardson: 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 | 1,138 | 8.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 576 | 7.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 543 | 9.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 9 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 28.1 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,138 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,262 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,090 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 987 | 11 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,007 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 890 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 982 | 10.7 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 Richardson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Richardson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Richardson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace