William Martin Conley
How Judge Conley rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Conley
William Martin Conley is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Conley received a commission on March 25, 2010.
Judge Conley's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Conley, 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
For summary judgment, each proposed finding must be supported by admissible evidence because the court will not search the record for factual evidence.
“The court will not search the record for factual evidence.”
Conferences
Counsel must confer two weeks before the final pretrial conference about the matters specified in the bench-trial procedures.
“No later than two weeks before the final pretrial conference, counsel are to confer for the following purposes:”
Trial
Parties, lawyers, and anyone acting for a party must obtain permission before contacting jurors.
“must obtain permission from the trial judge or magistrate judge before contacting jurors.”
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).
- In Re: Standing Order Governing the Use and Submission of Electronic Evidence (Administrative Order 434) ↗
- In Re: Procedures for the Filing, Service and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents (Administrative Order 453) ↗
- Amended General Rules for Filing Documents Under Seal (Administrative Order 460) ↗
How Judge Conley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Moffett v. Haag, Conley granted summary judgment for prison officials on a retaliation claim. He found no evidence tying the challenged law-library decisions to the prisoner's earlier litigation; speculation, a two-year gap, and an isolated comment did not create a triable issue.
“IT IS ORDERED that: 1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. #33) is GRANTED;”
Procedural preferences
In Bemke v. Pechacek, Conley denied a preliminary injunction sought by disability-benefit recipients challenging Wisconsin's unemployment-benefit rules. The plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm, back benefits could provide a remedy, and their delay undercut the claimed urgency.
“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (dkt. #2) is DENIED.”
In Bemke v. Pechacek, after classwide relief on a challenge to a state statute, Conley declined to expand the case to cover individual benefits-processing disputes.
“Although plaintiffs raise important issues about claims processing, this class action was filed to challenge the validity of a state statutue. The court will not now expand the case to encompass individual claims processing disputes.”
In a rental-property dispute, Judge Conley compelled arbitration for some plaintiffs under the booking account’s terms but allowed the claims of other plaintiffs to remain in court. He paused substantive rulings while permitting discovery to continue.
“Discovery among the parties under the Rules of Civil Procedure to preserve the record SHALL CONTINUE.”
In the consolidated Cole proceedings, after repeated filings across unrelated cases and warnings, Conley required the plaintiff to obtain written permission before making further submissions.
“Cole is BARRED from filing any new motions, submissions or evidence in his lawsuits unless he first requests in writing permission”
Cautions
In Davis v. Allen, Conley denied an officer's summary-judgment motion in a police-dog excessive-force case. Disputed facts about whether the plaintiff had been subdued and was visibly compliant required a jury to decide whether continued force was reasonable.
“IT IS ORDERED that defendant Christopher Allen's motion for summary judgment (dkt. #14) is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that: 1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. #33) is GRANTED;”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendant Christopher Allen's motion for summary judgment (dkt. #14) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (dkt. #2) is DENIED.”
“2) Defendant Johnson's motion to dismiss or transfer (dkt. #14) is DENIED.”
Pro se prisoner Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect suit. A defense summary-judgment motion was pending, but the court dismissed the case sua sponte under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff missed the response deadline and a court-set extension, deeming the case abandoned. Grounding quote: 'IT IS ORDERED that this lawsuit is DISMISSED with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for plaintiff's failure to prosecute it.' The dismissal was with prejudice, and the pending summary-judgment motion was never reached on the merits.
“The Homeowners' motion for a preliminary injunction (dkt. #88) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendant's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss for failure to state a claim (dkt. #50) is DENIED.”
“The amended federal habeas corpus petition filed by Terrence Buchanan (dkt. #7) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state court remedies.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss (dkt. #16) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendant Sam Sperry's renewed motion for directed verdict and entry of judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (dkt. #161) and motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 (dkt. #162) are DENIED.”
“defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. #102) is GRANTED”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (dkt. #18) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability (dkt. #25) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed assignments include prisoner and other civil-rights cases, employment, benefits, Social Security, consumer, contract, foreclosure, wage, bankruptcy, and public-law disputes. They illustrate the docket's breadth but do not form a complete census.
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 | 153 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 22 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 28 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 153 | 28 |
| Sep 2025 | 79 | 21 |
| Mar 2025 | 91 | 17 |
| Sep 2024 | 74 | 22 |
| Mar 2024 | 65 | 21 |
| Sep 2023 | 56 | 37 |
| Mar 2023 | 27 | 46 |
| Sep 2022 | 41 | 54 |
| Mar 2022 | 122 | 54 |
| Sep 2021 | 160 | 51 |
| Mar 2021 | 201 | 31 |
| Sep 2020 | 109 | 23 |
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 Western District of Wisconsin, not for Judge Conley: 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 | 545 | 6.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 188 | 2.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 169 | 6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 174 | 13.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 26.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 545 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 526 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 614 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 633 | 10 months |
| Sep 2021 | 675 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 707 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 657 | 7.8 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 Conley with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Conley, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Conley's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace