Tu M. Pham
How Judge Pham rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pham
Tu M. Pham is Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Tennessee. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Tulane University and a law degree from the University of Illinois, then served as a federal appellate law clerk, private litigation associate, and federal prosecutor. He joined the court as a magistrate judge in 2003 and became chief magistrate judge in 2020.
Judge Pham's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pham, 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
Conferences
For a Pham settlement conference, the plaintiff must make a good faith proposal at least 14 days ahead; the defendant must counter at least seven days ahead.
“At least fourteen (14) days prior to the settlement conference, the plaintiff must make a good faith proposal of settlement to the defendant. At least seven (7) days prior to the conference, the defendant must make a good faith counter-proposal.”
Conferences
Submit an in camera settlement statement to Judge Pham at least three business days before the conference.
“at least three (3) business days before the settlement conference, an in camera statement”
Conferences
Bring lead trial counsel and a party representative with full settlement authority to Judge Pham’s conference.
“The lead attorney who will try the case for each party must appear. In addition, the parties, or representatives of corporate parties, must be present in person at the conference and must possess full authority to approve any settlement.”
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 Pham decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Taylor v. Memphis Area Legal Services, Inc., Magistrate Judge Pham recommended a lesser discovery sanction and a final warning because the plaintiff had appeared for her deposition and no lesser sanction had yet been imposed; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“the court has not previously imposed any less drastic sanctions against Plaintiff and, even though Plaintiff was not cooperative at her deposition, she did appear.”
In Dameon W. v. O'Malley, Pham affirmed the denial of supplemental security income benefits after finding that the administrative law judge had explained why a treating physician's opinion conflicted with the claimant's treatment records and statements.
“ALJ Peebles specifically addressed consistency: he found that Dr. Gardner's opinion was 'wholly inconsistent' with the rest of the medical record, including Plaintiff's treatment records and Plaintiff's statements to his providers.”
Procedural preferences
In Abd Al Khaliq v. FedEx, Pham recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff did not respond to two show-cause orders and extensions; the second order had warned that dismissal would be recommended. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
“the second show cause order warned that if Plaintiff did not respond, the magistrate judge would recommend that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.”
In Gray v. Memphis Shelby County Education Association, Pham denied default judgment because the plaintiff had not obtained the clerk's entry of default and the defendant had answered and responded to motions.
“Since Gray has not obtained the entry of default by the Clerk, her motion for default judgment is premature. ... MSCEA filed an answer to Gray's complaint and filed responses to both of Gray's motions. It cannot be said that MSCEA has failed to defend against the lawsuit.”
Cautions
In Pickens v. Dowdy, Pham granted judgment as a matter of law against a punitive-damages claim after finding that the driver's brief glance at a phone navigation app did not support a finding of reckless conduct under Tennessee law.
“Such evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to enable a reasonable jury to find defendant liable for punitive damages.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“To the extent that Defendants seek dismissal of the complaint, the motion is DENIED.”
District Judge Thomas L. Parker adopted Magistrate Judge Pham's report and recommendation to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's case sua sponte and with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) after two extensions and two show-cause orders went unanswered. Dismissal quote: 'the Court ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE.'
District Judge Thomas L. Parker adopted Magistrate Judge Pham's report and recommendation to dismiss one defendant sua sponte and without prejudice under Rule 4(m) after the pro se plaintiff never served it and did not respond to a show-cause order. Dismissal quote: 'the Court ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES Defendant TransUnion WITHOUT PREJUDICE.'
“Transportation Employee Leasing, LLC's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The ADEA claim (age claim) asserted by Plaintiff may proceed. All other claims are dismissed for the reasons set out in the Report and Recommendation.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 64) is converted into a motion for summary judgment and GRANTED. The above-captioned case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the court recommends that plaintiff's Request for Rule 11 Sanctions be DENIED.”
“the court recommends that Key's motion to suppress be denied.”
“the court recommends that Williams's motion to suppress be denied.”
“the undersigned recommends that Dufresne Spencer's motion to dismiss be denied.”
“For the reasons above, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.”
“For the above reasons, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
“the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Pham's caseload in the sampled window is a mix of his own large consent-jurisdiction docket, dominated by Social Security disability appeals (DIWC/DIWW and SSID claims), alongside employment discrimination, personal-injury, and insurance/contract disputes he carries through trial, and a referral docket of pretrial motions (dismissal, discovery, suppression) in cases assigned to the district's Article III judges, plus routine criminal matters (search warrants, initial appearances, forfeiture).
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Tennessee, not for Judge Pham: 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 | 893 | 8.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 381 | 8.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 489 | 8.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 25.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 13 | 26.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 893 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 737 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 755 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 782 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 792 | 10 months |
| Sep 2020 | 766 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 780 | 9.7 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 Pham with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pham, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pham's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace