William C. Griesbach
How Judge Griesbach rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Griesbach
William C. Griesbach is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Griesbach received a commission on May 1, 2002. Judge Griesbach assumed senior status on December 31, 2019.
Judge Griesbach's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Griesbach, 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
Filing
Email appropriate proposed orders in an editable word-processing format, with the case number and requested relief in the subject line.
“Proposed orders, when appropriate, should be emailed to [email protected] in word processing format (not PDF). The subject line of the e-mail should contain the case number and the type of relief requested (e.g., 08-C-999 Order Extending Time).”
Motions
When seeking an extension, amendment or enlarged brief, confer with the other parties where reasonably possible and state whether the motion is opposed.
“When reasonably able to do so, a party seeking an extension Time, Leave to File Amended of any deadline, leave to file an amended pleading or Pleadings, etc. enlarged brief, or similar relief should confer with all other parties in the case to determine whether any party objects. A motion seeking such relief should, where possible, indicate whether the motion is opposed.”
Motions
Raise objections to another party’s submission in the merits brief rather than a separate motion to strike.
“Objections to another party’s submission should normally be raised in the objecting party’s merits brief, rather than in a separate motion to strike.”
Discovery
After an unresolved Rule 37 conference, parties may request a telephone conference before filing a discovery motion.
“parties are invited to request a telephone conference with the Court in advance of filing a discovery motion if they are unable to resolve the matter in the Rule 37 conference.”
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 Griesbach decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an election-funding suit, he found that the plaintiffs offered a political argument rather than a concrete basis for federal judicial relief.
“Though this is a federal lawsuit seeking relief in a federal court, Plaintiffs have offered only a political argument for prohibiting municipalities from accepting money from private entities to assist in the funding of elections for public offices.”
In a prisoner's exhaustion dispute, Griesbach applied continuing-violation and discovery-rule reasoning to avoid starting a grievance deadline before the prisoner could know he had a claim.
“It would hardly be fair to hold that the time within which a prisoner must file a grievance to exhaust his administrative remedy can run before the prisoner even knows he has a claim.”
Qualified-immunity arguments should define the asserted right at a fact-specific level. A general right to medical care did not establish that officers confronting these particular circumstances had notice that their conduct was unlawful.
“Nothing about an arrestee’s general right to adequate medical care would have put the Defendant officers on notice that their actions under these particular facts were unconstitutional.”
A factual dispute over consent did not prevent summary judgment where the defendant independently established a regulatory defense through reasonable compliance practices.
“Nevertheless, AHS has demonstrated that it has established and implemented reasonable practices and procedures to prevent violations of the TCPA.”
In the reviewed prison-conditions case, a prolonged denial of out-of-cell exercise defeated the officials’ qualified-immunity argument at summary judgment under established precedent.
“Under these circumstances, I cannot find as a matter of law that the defendants could have reasonably believed that denying Young out-of-cell exercise for almost an entire year would not constitute a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.”
Procedural preferences
In the cited FLSA suit, Griesbach denied collective-action notice after finding that individualized timekeeping practices and defenses made the proposed notice inappropriate for managing the case.
“An FLSA plaintiff has no right to notice; it is merely a procedural tool used by district courts to manage especially similar cases. Authorizing notice in a case such as this would turn a tool into a sword.”
In an election case, he cited the Supreme Court’s warning against changing electoral rules close to an election when denying the requested relief.
“To do so would also run afoul of the Supreme Court's admonition that courts should not change electoral rules close to an election date. Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020).”
A RLUIPA plaintiff must produce evidence that the challenged prison policy substantially burdened religious exercise; dissatisfaction with administrative delay, without that showing, is insufficient.
“In any event, Zimmerman has failed to present any evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the current DOC policy for granting Requests for Religious Practice or Property imposed a substantial burden on his religious exercise.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For these reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of standing (Dkt. No. 23) is GRANTED. This case is dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.”
“The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and other preliminary relief is therefore DENIED.”
“Because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, no further analysis as to whether to grant an injunction is necessary and their motion for an injunction pending appeal (Dkt. No. 31) is DENIED.”
“For these reasons, Laverenz' Motion for Conditional Certification and Authorization of Notice to Similarly Situated Persons (Dkt. No. 47) is DENIED. Pioneer's motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief (Dkt. No. 61) is GRANTED.”
“For these reasons, Kramer's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 23) and McArdle's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 29) are DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Brown County, Bryce Haines, Kayla Kuchta, Clint Pelischek, Adam Schartner, and Matthew West (Dkt. No. 48) is granted and Plaintiff’s claims against them are dismissed.”
“The motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of the City of Green Bay, Thomas Behn, Scott Delsart, Ben Harvath, Michael O’Donnell, Karen Pineda, Christopher Vaubel, and Alex Wanish (Dkt. No. 65) is also granted and Plaintiff’s claims against them are likewise dismissed.”
“Rebecca Warren’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 59), however, is denied.”
“For these reasons, the DOC’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 48) is GRANTED.”
“For this reason, AHS’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 37) is GRANTED.”
“For the above reasons, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
“the motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted as to Counts Three, Four, and Five of the Complaint, and those Counts are dismissed without prejudice. The motion is denied as to Count Six.”
“The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is therefore denied”
“Kaeser’s request to strike CPR’s jury demand is therefore denied”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 113.0 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 161.0 days (N = 8).
This is a qualitative description of the sampled assigned cases, not a complete caseload census or an authoritative denominator.
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 13 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 17 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Eastern District of Wisconsin, not for Judge Griesbach: 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 Griesbach with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Griesbach, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Griesbach's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace