Byron Browning Conway
How Judge Conway rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Conway
Byron Browning Conway is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Conway received a commission on November 4, 2024.
Judge Conway's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Conway, 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
Motions
Request court action by motion, including unopposed requests; letters and stipulations alone are insufficient.
“DO NOT REQUEST ANY COURT ACTION BY WAY OF A LETTER OR STIPULATION. ‘A request for a court order must be made by motion.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). Unopposed requests may be docketed as a ‘Stipulated Motion,’ ‘Unopposed Motion,’ or ‘Joint Motion.’”
Motions
File extension requests as expedited motions under Civil Local Rule 7(h).
“Motions for extensions of time should be filed as expedited motions under Civil Local Rule 7(h).”
Discovery
Before a discovery motion, meet and confer in good faith and identify specifically the relief to be requested.
“Parties must meet and confer in a good faith attempt to resolve every discovery dispute prior to filing. See Civ. L.R. 37. This contemplates not merely an exchange of emails stating that, e.g., discovery remains outstanding, but communications both making clear that a discovery motion is imminent and identifying specifically what the movant will be seeking from the court.”
Sealing
If a filing contains confidential information, generally file a redacted public version and an unredacted restricted or sealed version.
“If a filing contains truly confidential information, filing a redacted public version and an unredacted version restricted or under seal is generally necessary.”
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 Conway decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Schmidtknecht v. Optum Rx, Inc., he denied dismissal of a wrongful-death claim after finding that one plausible negligence theory was enough to sustain the claim at the pleading stage.
“The plaintiffs having presented one plausible theory to sustain their wrongful death claim, the court's analysis ends.”
In one false-arrest suit, the court treated undisputed drugs and firearms found during a warranted search as sufficient probable cause. A dispute over whether the plaintiff also fired at officers did not change the result.
“In short, regardless of whether Plaintiff fired a gun at officers, the undisputed facts demonstrate that Defendants had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.”
Procedural preferences
In Osman v. Schmidt, he began by resolving subject-matter jurisdiction before addressing the merits of an immigration detainee's habeas petition.
“The court begins, as it must, with the question of jurisdiction.”
Claim-vs-theory discipline at the pleading stage: a 12(b)(6) motion may dismiss only whole claims, not parts of claims or particular legal theories; theory-narrowing belongs at summary judgment (BBL v. City of Angola).
“at the motion to dismiss stage the court may dismiss only claims. The court cannot dismiss parts of claims or particular theories. Summary judgment is the procedure for narrowing claims or foreclosing theories.”
In Schmidtknecht v. Optum Rx, Conway denied dismissal of a wrongful-death claim based on a pharmacy-benefit manager's alleged failure to notify a beneficiary of a formulary change. He found the asserted notice duty independent of a benefits-denial claim and allowed the preemption defense to be renewed on a fuller record.
“A claim that a PBM was negligent because it failed to provide a beneficiary with notice that his prescription would no longer be covered ... does not implicate any of the policies underlying preemption.”
In Osman v. Schmidt, Conway denied an immigration detainee's habeas petition after finding that the district court could not decide prima facie eligibility for temporary protected status in the first instance. He read the statutory scheme as calling for the administrative process to address that question first.
“nothing in the text or history of the statute or the structure [of] immigration law generally suggests that prima facie eligibility is a determination for a federal district court ... the assumption is that matters are first addressed administratively.”
In Morris, the court required each summary-judgment movant to file a numbered statement of proposed material facts with record citations. It denied both sides’ motions without prejudice when neither complied and allowed prompt refiling.
“Neither Defendants nor Plaintiff submitted a statement of proposed material facts with their motion for summary judgment.”
Cautions
A motion-to-dismiss win on preemption may be provisional: Conway expressly invites the defense to be re-raised at summary judgment on a developed record.
“depending on the specific facts, ERISA may nonetheless ultimately preempt the plaintiffs' claim ... But such questions are not properly before the court on a motion to dismiss.”
Fee requests should include detailed billing records. In a straightforward default case, Conway reduced claimed hours by 50 percent when counsel supplied only aggregate hours and also reduced an unsupported paralegal rate.
“District courts, entrusted with the task of ordering an unsuccessful litigant to pay the reasonable attorney's fees of his opponent, may properly demand that a claim for such fees be fully supported by accurate and detailed records. When it is not, the request may be denied.”
In one prisoner suit, a late grievance about alleged retaliation did not qualify for the untimed sexual-harassment complaint rule. The claim against that defendant ended for failure to exhaust remedies.
“It is undisputed that Brooks did not submit his inmate complaint against Fry within the fourteen-day time limit, so he failed to exhaust the administrative remedies on his claim against her.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 6) is vacated, Saad Osman's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is denied, and this action is dismissed.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Default Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs ... and against Defendant BMD Concrete Innovations LLC in the amount of $257,020.26 together with interest at the rate allowed by law.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Optum Rx's motion to dismiss the amended complaint is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the defendants' motion to dismiss Kraeger's first amended complaint (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED as to Claim I. The motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Claims II and III.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.”
“This Court granted Allied's motion, finding Berg failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by neglecting to timely file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before bringing her lawsuit for violations of the ADEA, ADA, or Title VII. (ECF No. 10, at 2-3.) This court dismissed Berg's final claim under 'Wisconsin Fair Labor Standards Act' ... for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, as the Act provides no private right of action. ... The court entered its decision and final judgment on March 7, 2025. The Seventh Circuit, affirming, recounted that ‘because the defect in Berg’s complaint -- the untimeliness of her charge to the EEOC -- could not be remedied by amendment, the court dismissed her claims with prejudice.””
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Peter A. Kraeger's Motion to Certify Appeal as Frivolous (ECF No. 34) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Sandee Rae Berg's Motion to Seal (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.”
“Corrigan's motion to strike the defendants' answer (ECF No. 21) is denied.”
“Corrigan's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 21) is also denied. Corrigan failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 56(b).”
“In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3)(B)(i) and the Electronic Case Filing Policies and Procedures Manual, Section I.A.1, the motion (ECF No. 23) is granted.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Domminic Canzoneri's motion for default judgment (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's renewed motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 40) is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's renewed motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 40) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Optum Rx’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed docket includes prisoner civil-rights, habeas, Social Security, wage, benefits, insurance, employment, intellectual-property, and commercial matters from the beginning of Conway's tenure.
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 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 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 Wisconsin, not for Judge Conway: 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 | 1,062 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 137 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 879 | 6.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 36 | 13.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 22.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,062 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 982 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,028 | 8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,065 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,134 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,184 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,253 | 6.9 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 Conway with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Conway, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Conway's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace