Patricia Tolliver Giles
How Judge Giles rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Giles
Patricia Tolliver Giles is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Giles received a commission on November 1, 2021.
Judge Giles's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Giles'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 Giles decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Suri's immigration-detention case, Giles held that the district retained habeas jurisdiction despite his transfer after filing and denied the government's motions to dismiss or transfer the case.
“the Court finds that it has proper habeas jurisdiction to consider the Petition. Accordingly, Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkts. 24, 25) are denied.”
On a 12(b)(6) procedural-due-process challenge to evidence retention, she follows circuit precedent that the Fourth Amendment defines the process due for property lawfully seized and held during an active criminal investigation.
“because the motorcycles were lawfully seized under the Fourth Amendment and retained as evidence in an active criminal investigation, no further process was due.”
On appeal from a Chapter 13 dismissal, she found no abuse of discretion where the proposed plan exceeded the statutory term and the debtors missed the deadline to file a conforming plan.
“Because Appellants sought confirmation of a plan extending for longer than sixty months, the bankruptcy court did not err in denying confirmation of the second plan.”
In NetChoice, she found that Virginia’s social media use limit distinguished among areas of protected speech, then granted preliminary relief against enforcement of the law.
“That same reasoning applies here because SB 854 draws distinctions between areas of protected speech.”
Procedural preferences
In Suri v. Trump, Giles heard argument chiefly on jurisdiction and addressed that threshold question before the other pending motions.
“On May 1, 2025, the Court heard oral argument primarily focused on the issue of jurisdiction, which must be resolved before reaching the other motions.”
Without an evidentiary hearing, she takes the non-movant's factual assertions as true for the jurisdictional inquiry (allegations in the light most favorable to the non-movant).
“Absent an evidentiary hearing, the Court accepts the non-movants factual assertions.”
In Robinson v. Punturi, Giles dismissed a habeas action without prejudice after twice giving the petitioner opportunities and guidance to correct an incomplete petition.
“Mr. Robinson has been provided with two opportunities to correct his deficiencies, as well as significant guidance in orders from this Court, and he has again failed to comply.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court finds that it has proper habeas jurisdiction to consider the Petition. Accordingly, Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkts. 24, 25) are denied.”
“ORDERED that Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkts. 24, 25) are DENIED”
“Petitioner's 20 Motion for Release on Bond is GRANTED ... Petitioner Dr. Khan Suri is to be immediately released on his personal recognizance during the pendency of his habeas proceedings”
“Petitioner's 5 Motion to Compel Respondents to Return Petitioner to this District is DENIED as moot”
APPELLATE panel opinion AUTHORED by Giles sitting by designation on the Fourth Circuit (joined by Judges Benjamin and Floyd): not a district-court motion ruling, so EXCLUDED from district motion stats; recorded for the pattern layer. A vehicle-finance lienholder brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 procedural-due-process claim after a sheriff's department seized and retained two motorcycles as murder-investigation evidence without notifying the lienholder. The panel AFFIRMED the district court's 12(b)(6) dismissal: where property is lawfully seized and retained as evidence in an active criminal investigation, the Fourth Amendment (not the Fourteenth Amendment's notice-and-hearing requirement) defines the process due, so no further process was owed. Shows her textualist/precedent-bound reading of due process in the criminal-evidence context.
“ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 41) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the list of books (as submitted to the Court) is deemed filed on the public docket and included as Attachment A to this Memorandum Order.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;”
“For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 48) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that NetChoice has standing and satisfied each of the factors set out in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
“Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as it relates to Comcast's Seventh Amendment and Article III claims. Comcast has also not properly pled a compensable injury as a result of the removal restriction on DOL ALJs and has therefore failed to state a claim for an Article II violation. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as it relates to Comcast's Article II claim.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 8) will be granted, and Petitioner's Motion to Amend (Dkts. 16, 24) will be denied. The Petition must be dismissed with prejudice, and an appropriate Order shall issue.”
“At this point, amendment would be futile because the original pleading was not timely filed—i.e. there is no timely claim to which the new claim could relate back. ... Thus, the Court will deny Mr. Nelson's motion to amend.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 23) is DENIED. Defendant is directed to approve Plaintiff Mursal Zalmai's application for naturalization.”
“ORDERED that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkts. 5, 6) are GRANTED; ... and it is further ORDERED that this civil action be and is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 8) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's ADEA, ADA, and Title VII claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 41.5 days (N = 6).
The sampled Alexandria docket includes immigration-agency review and mandamus, consumer and accessibility suits, employment, prisoner civil rights, and federal criminal matters. Her 2026 active assignments include a large volume of alien-detainee petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This is a qualitative description of the reviewed cases, not a counted population distribution.
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 | 3 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, not for Judge Giles: 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 Giles with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Giles, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Giles's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace