Irene M. Keeley
How Judge Keeley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a fraudulent-joinder/removal challenge, the party seeking to establish federal jurisdiction cannot rely on speculative attorneys'-fee estimates or unrelated class-action fee awards from other cases; it must present concrete evidence tied to this case's damages.
“Zales has identified no similarities between those class actions and this case save that the claims all arise under the same statute ... You cannot multiply an unknown by an unknown.”
In a Natural Gas Act condemnation case, the judge credited a live evidentiary hearing over the resisting landowners' filings in finding the pipeline company had shown a substantive right to condemn and immediate need for possession.
“After carefully considering the record, and the evidence adduced at a hearing on February 16, 2018, for the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Columbia's Motion for an Order of Condemnation and for Preliminary Injunction.”
Procedural preferences
Post-removal joinder of an additional non-diverse defendant that destroys complete diversity requires remand under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(e), even where the removing defendants argue the newly added party is not necessary or indispensable; the judge treats this as a straightforward statutory command rather than a discretionary balancing test once diversity is actually destroyed.
“the post-removal joinder of a non-diverse defendant does destroy complete diversity, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(e), and thus strips the Court of subject matter jurisdiction in this case.”
On a motion to reconsider or for a new trial following summary judgment, the judge holds movants to a strict newly-discovered-evidence standard: affidavits a party could have obtained before judgment with reasonable diligence do not qualify, no matter how quickly they are produced afterward.
“Evidence that is available to a party prior to entry of judgment, therefore, is not a basis for granting a motion for reconsideration as a matter of law.”
In awarding a prevailing civil-rights defendant's attorneys' fees, the judge reviews the entire course of litigation rather than treating each individual motion's success or failure as controlling, and will find a plaintiff's claims frivolous even where he survived an early motion to dismiss.
“in making its determination, the Court must review the entire course of litigation and the overall results obtained.”
Cautions
The judge will award a prevailing civil-rights defendant its full requested attorneys' fee, including work on discovery motions, when the record shows the suit was pursued for an improper collateral purpose (here, to harass an ex-spouse and the officers perceived as protecting her), and will not discount the award for the losing plaintiff's financial hardship in that circumstance.
“abundant evidence supports the conclusion that Ballock pursued this litigation to harass Costlow, his ex-wife, and the State Troopers he perceived were protecting her.”
Constitutional and civil-rights claims that are conclusory, unsupported by any plausible factual nexus, or that repeat theories already rejected by numerous other district courts will be dismissed as frivolous, not merely denied on the merits.
“there is no conceivable connection to religion involving these acts.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court, therefore, ORDERS that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, be DENIED.”
“GRANTS Francis' motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 23)”
“DENIES Davis' motions for summary judgment (dkt. nos. 19, 26, & 30)”
“DENIES Davis' motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 44)”
“this Court, upon reconsideration, DENIES Davis' motion to compel AS MOOT.”
“the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART the defendants' motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 19), ADOPTS-IN-PART the Magistrate Judge's April 6, 2009 Report and Recommendation (dkt. no. 33), DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE defendants Stasny, Hyre, George, Mussi, Higgans and Fincham, DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Wilson's defamation of character claim, REJECTS the recommendation to dismiss Defendant Smith”
“DENIES the defendant's Motion to Strike or, alternatively, to file further briefs (dkt. no. 31)”
“the Court ADOPTS the R&R (dkt. 19) in its entirety, GRANTS the State's motion to dismiss (dkt. 14), and DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court GRANTS Marathon's motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 48)”
“DENIES AWP's motion for summary for summary judgment (dkt. no. 51)”
“The Court GRANTS the plaintiffs' motion to remand (dkt. no. 20), and DENIES AS MOOT Antero's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 10).”
“DENIES AS MOOT Antero's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 10).”
“the Court DENIES Brewer's pro se motion to suppress evidence (dkt. no. 35).”
“the Court ADOPTS Judge Kaull's report and recommendation, and DENIES AS MOOT Andrews's second motion to suppress statements.”
“the Court GRANTS Bond's motion to remand (Dkt. No. 12), and REMANDS the case to the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia.”
“the Court GRANTS Columbia's Motion for an Order of Condemnation and for Preliminary Injunction.”
“the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 99) and DENIES as MOOT the defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 52).”
“GRANTS the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 100);”
“DENIES Antero's motions to exclude (Dkt. Nos. 96, 97);”
“DENIES Antero's motion to strike (Dkt. No. 142);”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 193 days (N = 1).
The sampled 2021-2022 civil dockets spanned insurance and product-liability suits, oil-and-gas and trademark disputes, employment and civil-rights claims, Social Security appeals, and Sec. 2255 post-conviction motions. Most of the sampled civil cases resolved by stipulated dismissal or settlement shortly after filing, without a contested motion surviving in the record -- consistent with a civil docket where most cases resolve before judgment.
Put Judge Keeley's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Keeley actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Keeley's own signed orders and cites them.