Leonie M. Brinkema
How Judge Brinkema rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brinkema
Leonie M. Brinkema is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Brinkema received a commission on October 20, 1993.
Judge Brinkema's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Brinkema'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 Brinkema decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In McClellan v. City of Alexandria, she denied the defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I and II of a First Amendment challenge but granted it as to Count III.
“defendants' motion to dismiss will be denied as to Counts I and II and granted as to Count III.”
In Diaz v. Hott, she granted the petitioners' summary-judgment motions and denied the respondents' motion after holding that withholding-only immigration detainees were detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and entitled to bond hearings.
“petitioners' motions will be granted and respondents' motion will be denied.”
In Portillo v. Hott, she held that Rodriguez’s continued immigration detention without a bond hearing violated due process after more than fourteen months. She ordered a bond hearing at which the government had to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.
“Accordingly, at the bond hearing, the government must demonstrate that Rodriguez is either a flight risk or a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence.”
In Chapman v. United States, she granted Chapman's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion after an intervening Supreme Court vagueness ruling undercut his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions.
“For the reasons that follow, Chapman's motion will be granted.”
Procedural preferences
In Integrated Direct Marketing, LLC v. May, she moved the Arkansas Supreme Court to answer an unresolved question about conversion of electronic data that could determine the remaining claim.
“the Court will move the Arkansas Supreme Court to answer one question of law because the remaining claim in this litigation presents an unresolved question of Arkansas law that may be determinative of this pending civil action.”
In Stewart v. Lee, she considered a self-represented plaintiff's surreply despite its being filed without leave. She then granted the defendant's motion to dismiss after considering the claims.
“Although plaintiff has also improperly filed a surreply without first seeking leave of court, ... the Court has considered it out of deference to plaintiffs pro se status. For the reasons that follow, defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be granted.”
In Doe v. Fairfax County School Board, she found flaws in a school disciplinary investigation but granted summary judgment on the student's Title IX claim because he had not shown a particularized connection between those flaws and gender bias.
“Although plaintiffs have demonstrated ways in which the investigation and subsequent hearing were flawed, satisfying the first element, they have not produced sufficient evidence to establish a ‘particularized causal connection’ between gender bias and the flawed investigation and outcome”
In United States v. Farkas, she denied a motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) based on losses in diversified mutual funds, applying the § 455(d)(4)(i) safe harbor.
“Farkas' § 455 Motion will be DENIED by an appropriate Order to be issued with this Memorandum Opinion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion to dismiss will be denied as to Counts I and II and granted as to Count III.”
“the School Board's motions will be granted in their entirety; ... and all counts of plaintiffs' complaints except for the gross negligence claims against Howard will be dismissed.”
“Howard's motions will be granted in part and denied in part; and all counts of plaintiffs' complaints except for the gross negligence claims against Howard will be dismissed.”
“the Court will move the Arkansas Supreme Court to answer one question of law because the remaining claim in this litigation presents an unresolved question of Arkansas law that may be determinative of this pending civil action.”
“Before the Court is petitioners' Motion to Certify Class [Dkt. No. 11] and Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 16] as well as respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 21]. For the reasons that follow, petitioners' motions will be granted and respondents' motion will be denied.”
“petitioners' motions will be granted and respondents' motion will be denied.”
“For the reasons that follow, defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be granted.”
“defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 100] will be granted by an appropriate Order to be issued with this Memorandum Opinion.”
“Before the Court is defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 51] to which plaintiff has responded. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.”
“petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 15] will be granted, and petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. No. 1] will be granted in part and denied in part”
“respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 6] will be denied”
“respondents' Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment [Dkt. No. 17] will be denied by an Order to be issued with this Memorandum Opinion.”
“Until there is a sufficiently certain disclosure that charges have in fact been filed, the Committee's common law and First Amendment claims are premature. ... the Committee's application will be denied without prejudice by an appropriate Order”
“Before the Court is movant Seifullah Chapman's (‘movant’ or ‘Chapman’) Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Dkt. No. 813]. For the reasons that follow, Chapman's motion will be granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled dockets include Lewis v. Wal-Mart, which was reassigned to Judge Brinkema in January 2022; its earlier orders may bear another judge’s signature.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, not for Judge Brinkema: 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 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,204 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,299 | 4.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 493 | 8.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 15 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,613 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,194 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,134 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,152 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,860 | 6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,267 | 5.9 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 Brinkema with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brinkema, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brinkema's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace