Howard Curtis Nielson Jr.
How Judge Nielson rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Nielson
Howard Curtis Nielson, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Nielson received a commission on June 12, 2019.
Judge Nielson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Nielson, 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
Email proposed orders to chambers in editable Word format in addition to attaching them to the motion.
“In addition to attaching a copy of the order to the motion, counsel must email a copy of any proposed orders directly to chambers at [email protected]. Proposed orders emailed to chambers must be editable and in Word format. A Word template for proposed orders is available: Proposed Orders Template (docx).”
Motions
Seek leave to amend in a separate written motion before oral argument on a motion to dismiss.
“file a separate, written motion for leave to amend that complies with the court’s local rules before Judge Nielson hears argument on the motion to dismiss.”
Motions
In civil cases, file one consolidated dismissal or summary judgment motion rather than a motion for each claim.
“Litigants shall file a single motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. Absent permission from the court, separate motions for each cause of action are not permitted.”
Conferences
Judge Nielson generally hears legal arguments by video, while trials and evidentiary hearings are in person.
“The court generally holds status conferences and hears legal argument on motions by videoconference (Zoom). By contrast, the court conducts trials (including final pretrial conferences) and evidentiary hearings in person.”
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 Nielson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In AlexSam v. HealthEquity, he found that the patent complaint’s factual allegations prevented dismissal on eligibility grounds at the pleading stage and expressly welcomed prompt Federal Circuit review if that ruling was wrong.
“If this court’s ruling is erroneous, it would welcome reversal by the Federal Circuit.”
Procedural preferences
In Viens v. Nowicki, he directed a self-represented prisoner to amend a screened civil-rights complaint because it lacked facts linking each defendant to an alleged violation and did not adequately plead the medical-treatment claim.
“Pro se litigants are not excused from complying with these minimal pleading demands.”
In one ERISA benefits case, he denied a fee request without prejudice after remanding the benefit decision because entitlement to benefits was still unresolved.
“For all these reasons, the court concludes that the Plaintiffs’ motion is unripe.”
Cautions
In a Hague Convention return case, Judge Nielson applied the habitual-residence rule and ordered return to Sweden despite stated reservations about the family circumstances, leaving custody issues for Swedish courts.
“because the circumstances and considerations giving rise to the court’s reservations do not alter its legal conclusion that Sweden was M.K.’s habitual residence at the time of her removal, the court’s hands are tied by the Convention and the ICARA.”
In a deleted-files sanctions dispute, Judge Nielson upheld Magistrate Judge Bennett's lesser-sanction decision under clear-error review and overruled the plaintiffs' objection.
“For all these reasons, the court concludes that Judge Bennett’s decision was not clearly erroneous.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ motions to dismiss are accordingly GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For all of these reasons, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of United and against Plaintiffs.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Ian C.’s claim for benefits is REMANDED to United for further consideration.”
“Docket Number 85, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“For all of these reasons, the court grants summary judgment in favor of TSI on all of Plaintiff’s claims against TSI and dismisses all of Plaintiff’s claims against the Trust.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court declines to stay this action and instead GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. Dkt. No. 8.”
“Docket Numbers 27 and 28, Plaintiff’s motions to amend his pleadings to include claims of retaliation and ‘expedite [this] case due to retaliation’ regarding more recent allegations of inadequate medical treatment are DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“In light of this disposition, Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Kelly Shafto and Rick Miranda is denied as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 282 days (N = 17).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 42 days (N = 19).
This is a bounded enumeration of 19 distinct cases filed in early 2022, not a career-wide caseload profile.
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 | 69 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 27 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 69 | 27 |
| Sep 2025 | 48 | 27 |
| Mar 2025 | 52 | 23 |
| Sep 2024 | 50 | 17 |
| Mar 2024 | 25 | 17 |
| Sep 2023 | 15 | 17 |
| Mar 2023 | 12 | 20 |
| Sep 2022 | 16 | 28 |
| Mar 2022 | 15 | 20 |
| Sep 2021 | 20 | 16 |
| Mar 2021 | 19 | 17 |
| Sep 2020 | 12 | 14 |
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 Utah, not for Judge Nielson: 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 | 1,120 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 343 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 764 | 9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 3 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 59 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,120 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,141 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,035 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,092 | 12.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,128 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 951 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,085 | 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 Nielson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Nielson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Nielson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace