Nancy Joseph
How Judge Joseph rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Joseph
Nancy Joseph serves as a United States Magistrate Judge in Milwaukee for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In March 2026, the court identified her as an incumbent and began the review for another eight-year term.
Judge Joseph's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Joseph'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 Joseph decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rexnord, Joseph denied the employer’s summary-judgment motion because disputed evidence about its direct-threat defense required a jury to decide.
“As to Rexnord’s direct threat defense, Rexnord has not shown that the evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable jury could find for Sullivan.”
In statutory-interpretation criminal motions she applies plain-language analysis and is willing to decide a question of first impression from the text rather than waiting for on-point precedent (here holding 18 U.S.C. 1513(b) is a 924(c) crime of violence with only persuasive sister-district support).
“courts must apply the plain language of a statute when called upon to do so even in the first instance.”
Procedural preferences
In Vargas, Joseph distinguished a challenge to immigration detention from a challenge to the removal order and ordered a prompt individualized bond hearing.
“Vargas' Count One claim is not a challenge to an order of removal. It is a challenge to detention and, specifically, to the denial of an individualized bond hearing.”
At a telephonic status conference in a consent civil case, she offered mediation to the parties.
“Minute Entry for telephonic status conference held 5/21/2012 before Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph: Court offers mediation.”
When an amended complaint superseded the earlier pleading in Hoffmann, she treated a judgment-on-the-pleadings motion against the old version as moot, then separately resolved the dismissal motion aimed at the new pleading.
“Because Plaintiff’s second amended complaint supersedes the first amended complaint, which is the subject of Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court denies Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings”
In a distributorship dispute, Joseph denied reconsideration after the defendant presented an assignment argument it could have raised in its original dismissal motion.
“Because CADCO failed to raise this argument in its motion to dismiss, I do not consider it now.”
In a contract case, Joseph allowed a fourth amended complaint to remove four claims after explaining that a stipulation under Rule 41 concerns dismissal of the whole action.
“Thus, the proper procedure in this case is to grant Plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint.”
Cautions
In Harris, the district judge adopted Joseph’s recommendation to deny a motion to dismiss after reviewing the defendant’s objections.
“Magistrate Joseph's report and recommendation on Harris' motion to dismiss is thoughtful and well-reasoned. Harris' objections thereto are without merit.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket # 66) is DENIED.”
“ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSEPH'S RECOMMENDATION (DOC. # 27) AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FOR ITS TECHNICAL INSUFFICIENCY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS (DOC. #15)”
“DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT UPON SUBSTANTIVE FIRST AMENDMENT GROUNDS (DOC. # 14)”
“AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT (DOC. # 16)”
“the defendant’s motions to dismiss (Docket #11 and #12) be and the same are hereby DENIED.”
“Defendant Derrick L. Harris’ motion to dismiss the superseding indictment (Docket #130) be and the same is hereby DENIED.”
“Respondents' motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.”
“Petitioner's motion to withdraw Claim Three of his petition will be granted.”
“The petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be granted in part to require an individualized bond hearing within ten (10) days, but otherwise denied.”
“Marcus Hutchins’s motion to suppress (Docket #55) be and the same is hereby DENIED;”
“Marcus Hutchins’s motions to dismiss (Docket #92, #95, and #96) be and the same are hereby DENIED;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss Count One (Docket # 21) and Count Two (Docket # 22) of the indictment be and the same are hereby DENIED .”
“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint (Docket # 32) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket # 29) is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to partially dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Docket # 35) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Reconsideration (Docket # 21) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 929 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 260 days (N = 21).
No court-wide grant rate is asserted; magistrate motion base rates are not recoverable from the assigned (warrant-heavy) docket the way they are for a district judge.
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 | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 1 |
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 Joseph: 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 Joseph with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Joseph, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Joseph's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace