Wilma A. Lewis
How Judge Lewis rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Lewis no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Lewis
Wilma A. Lewis joined the District Court of the Virgin Islands in July 2011 and left the bench in February 2026. A Swarthmore College and Harvard Law School graduate, she previously served as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia and held senior legal posts in the Department of the Interior.
How Judge Lewis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Youth With A Mission's insurance suit, Lewis excused service made 16 days after the deadline and denied dismissal because refiling faced a limitations bar and the insurers showed no prejudice from the delay.
“The viability of a statute of limitations defense to a re-filed lawsuit weighs heavily in favor of excusing Plaintiff's late service of process ... This is especially so given that there is nothing to suggest -- and Defendants make no argument -- that the short delay in perfecting service prejudiced Defendants in any way.”
In Lang's criminal case, Lewis granted the government's Rule 48(a) request to dismiss the indictment without prejudice after finding that Lang had not rebutted the presumption of prosecutorial good faith.
“The Court finds that Defendant has failed to rebut the presumption of good faith to which the Government is entitled in seeking leave to dismiss the Indictment.”
Procedural preferences
In a class-wide environmental-contamination preliminary-injunction request, the judge did not issue an all-or-nothing ruling: she tailored relief to the specific subgroup of plaintiffs who could show irreparable harm (those unable to afford replacement water without sacrificing other necessities), denying relief to the remainder of the putative class and denying broader monetary/remedial relief entirely.
“that the balance of hardships and the public interest both favor the issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining programmatic relief ... the Court will deny Plaintiffs' Motions insofar as Plaintiffs seek remedial relief, and ... insofar as Plaintiffs seek programmatic relief with respect to those Plaintiffs and putative class members who can afford to purchase water without trading off basic necessities.”
In Boynes's refinery-contamination litigation, Lewis denied a stay of the water-distribution injunction pending appeal because the terminal raised no new argument about likely success and did not show irreparable harm.
“Terminals' failure to raise a new argument suggesting its appeal is likely to be successful and its failure to articulate an irreparable harm are sufficient for the Court to deny Terminals' Motion.”
In Rodriguez Cruz's prisoner-conditions suit, Lewis dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denied a pending defense dismissal motion as moot rather than reaching its merits.
“ORDERED that Defendants Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Golden Grove Correctional Facility, Jonathan Santiago and Victor Graham's 'Motion to Dismiss' (Dkt. No. 69) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
A request to stay civil litigation because of a possible parallel criminal investigation requires concrete evidence of a pressing need for delay. The judge denied a stay where no indictment was pending or imminent, the corporate movants had no Fifth Amendment privilege of their own, and further delay would prejudice the opposing parties and the public.
“In sum, Moving Defendants have not shown ‘that there is pressing need for delay, and that neither the other party nor the public will suffer harm from entry of the order.’”
Cautions
In United States v. Nisbett, Lewis denied counsel’s request for payment for work on a post-conviction sentence-reduction motion because the original CJA appointment did not extend to that proceeding.
“Attorney Russell was not, however, appointed to represent Defendant in his post-conviction bid for reduction of sentence.”
In United States v. Henry, Lewis denied a compassionate-release motion without prejudice because the defendant had not shown that he first requested relief from the prison warden; she also declined to pressure prison staff to process his paperwork.
“It would also be improper for the Court -- as Defendant requests -- to exert 'outside pressure' on the staff of MDC Guaynabo to process his paperwork.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 3) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Dkt. Nos. 7, 14) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the Motion to Suppress is GRANTED to the extent that the keys, wallet, and insurance card removed from Defendant Wrensford will be suppressed; and it is further ORDERED that the Motion to Suppress is DENIED to the extent that the knife removed from Defendant Wrensford, his statements to the Virgin Islands Police Department, the buccal swab, and identifications of Defendant Wrensford by two witnesses will not be suppressed.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court will deny Defendant's Motion for Compassionate Release without prejudice.”
“The Court finds no basis for reconsidering its prior ruling, thus leaving intact its earlier conclusion that Defendant has not shown that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist to warrant granting his request for compassionate release.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.”
“For the following reasons, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.”
“Plaintiff's 'Motion for Default Judgment' (Dkt. No. 29) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“ORDERED that Defendants Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Golden Grove Correctional Facility, Jonathan Santiago and Victor Graham's 'Motion to Dismiss' (Dkt. No. 69) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“ORDERED that Defendants Jonathan Santiago, Victor Graham, and Diane Prosper's 'Motion for Summary Judgment' (Dkt. No. 173) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“ORDERED that Defendant Maxwell Bryan's 'Summary Judgment Motion' (Dkt. No. 175) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Accordingly, the Court will deny the Emergency Motion, including the preliminary injunction requested therein.”
“the Court will award Flagstar attorneys' fees of $3,520.00 and deny without prejudice the request for expenses in the amount of $1,523.97.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 16) is DENIED, and it is further”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s initial Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED AS MOOT; and it is further”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sampled dockets span a wide nature-of-suit mix typical of a general territorial civil and criminal docket: motor-vehicle and other personal-injury diversity suits, an asbestos-exposure products-liability cluster against refinery contractors, mortgage foreclosures, an IRS tax dispute, a civil-rights and voting suit, an insurance-coverage dispute, and a personal-injury products-liability case that remained pending at the evidence cutoff.
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 | 38 | 73 |
| Mar 2025 | 34 | 71 |
| Sep 2024 | 26 | 73 |
| Mar 2024 | 42 | 77 |
| Sep 2023 | 43 | 72 |
| Mar 2023 | 27 | 58 |
| Sep 2022 | 41 | 61 |
| Mar 2022 | 73 | 61 |
| Sep 2021 | 80 | 64 |
| Mar 2021 | 105 | 67 |
| Sep 2020 | 112 | 62 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Lewis no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.