Emile A. Henderson III
How Judge Henderson rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Henderson
Emile A. Henderson III has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix, since May 2022. A St. Croix native, he earned a B.A. from Mars Hill University and a J.D. from Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School. Before joining the court, he practiced law in the Virgin Islands and served as chief legal counsel to Governor Kenneth Mapp.
Judge Henderson's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Henderson'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 Henderson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In McIntosh-Luis v. Petty, Henderson denied two applications for entry of default after the plaintiff’s attempts at service failed to meet the applicable rules, while allowing more time to correct service. A later district order recounted and quoted his service rulings.
“Plaintiff’s service on Clendenin and Petty also fails to comport with Rule 4(e) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure.”
In Willett v. Dahlberg, Henderson denied a motion to compel additional medical records because Dahlberg had provided signed authorizations that allowed Willett to obtain the records directly from the providers.
“Dahlberg providing executed medical authorizations complies with his Rule 34 obligations in responding to Willett’s RFPs and thus he has not failed to disclose under Rule 37(c)(1).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Velasquez's Amended Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty, Dkt. No. 60, is GRANTED.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that the Government's Motion to Dismiss the Information Without Prejudice, Dkt. No. 9, be GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Emile Henderson III's Competency Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 31) is ADOPTED”
“the Court will reject the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in the Dismissal R&R that the Court grant the Government's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 16) at this time, and will deny the Motion without prejudice.”
Henderson recommended dismissing a prisoner complaint without prejudice after repeated opportunities to supply financial information. The district judge adopted the recommendation as modified; this screening disposition was not a classified party motion.
“Dahlberg's Motion to Compel, Dkt. No. 122, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“The Government's oral Motion for a Detention Hearing is DENIED.”
“that the Court grant Cruzan Viril, Ltd., Beam Suntory, Inc., and Ayanda Daniel’s (‘Cruzan Defendants’) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (‘Motion to Dismiss’) without prejudice (Dkt. No. 41).”
Henderson recommended finding the defendant incompetent to proceed to sentencing and committing him for evaluation; the district judge adopted the recommendation. This competency determination was not a party motion.
Henderson recommended dismissing the complaint after the plaintiff failed to prosecute the case. The district judge dismissed it as modified. No party motion is classified from this court-initiated disposition.
“The Court will therefore adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and deny Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgement.”
“Judge Henderson recommends that Plaintiff Charlotte P. Davis’ (‘Plaintiff’) Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 16) be denied”
“Plaintiff’s earlier-filed Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 7) be denied as moot.”
“The Defendant's Oral Motion for Release from Detention Pending Revocation Hearing is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled dockets referred to Henderson span three factually similar removed personal-injury suits against the same corporate defendant (Lockheed Martin Corporation) that followed a nearly identical case-management pattern, initial-conference orders, pro hac vice admissions for out-of-territory counsel, and a plaintiff- or defendant-side motion to stay pending a related proceeding, each denied, plus one very different pro se federal prisoner's civil-rights case, in which the judge repeatedly enforced filing-fee and in forma pauperis requirements before ultimately transferring the case to the district where the underlying conduct was alleged to have occurred.
- The mix illustrates both the routine procedural motion practice on a corporate personal-injury docket and the pro se gatekeeping work common to a small territorial bench.
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 | 15 |
| 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 | 15 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 21 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 16 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 8 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 9 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 18 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 25 | 0 |
| Sep 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 U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix, not for Judge Henderson: 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 | 105 | 10.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 62 | 5.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 15 | 10.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 27 | 25.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 1 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 105 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 138 | 16 months |
| Sep 2023 | 145 | 20.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 308 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 280 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 210 | 14.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 131 | 14.8 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 Henderson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Henderson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Henderson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace