Irene M. Keeley
How Judge Keeley rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Keeley no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Keeley
Irene Patricia Murphy Keeley served on the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia after receiving her commission on August 12, 1992. She assumed senior status on August 12, 2017, and took inactive senior status on September 30, 2022.
How Judge Keeley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bond v. Zales, Keeley remanded a wage-payment class action because the removing defendant had not shown that the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional threshold. She rejected speculative attorneys' fee estimates drawn from other class actions and unsupported assumptions about the size of this class.
“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
In Ronald Lane, Inc. v. Antero Resources Appalachian Corp., Keeley granted remand after a newly joined West Virginia defendant destroyed complete diversity. She found that the joinder deprived the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).
“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.”
In Mountaineer Minerals, LLC v. Antero Resources Corp., Keeley denied reconsideration of summary judgment and a request for a new trial. The movant's post-judgment affidavits did not qualify as newly discovered evidence because they could have been obtained before judgment with reasonable diligence.
“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 Ballock v. Costlow, Keeley awarded fees to the prevailing state troopers after finding the plaintiff’s claims against them unreasonable, groundless, or frivolous, despite his earlier success on part of their motion to dismiss.
“the Court previously determined that all of Ballock’s claims against the State Troopers were, at the very least, unreasonable, groundless, or frivolous (Dkt. No. 175). His success at the motion to dismiss stage does not disturb this determination.”
Cautions
In Ballock v. Costlow, she awarded attorneys' fees to prevailing state-trooper defendants and declined to reduce the award for the plaintiff's finances after finding that he had pursued the suit to harass his ex-wife and the troopers.
“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.”
In Penkoski v. Justice, she denied a motion to dismiss as moot after the pro se plaintiffs timely amended their complaint, adopting an unopposed magistrate judge's recommendation.
“the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 99) and DENIES as MOOT the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 52).”
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)”
“For the reasons discussed, 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.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Keeley was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2025.
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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.
A historical record
Judge Keeley no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.