Irene C. Berger
How Judge Berger rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Berger
Irene Cornelia Berger is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Berger received a commission on November 9, 2009.
Judge Berger's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Berger'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 Berger decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Marfork Coal Company, Inc. v. Smith, she declined to order law enforcement officers to perform duties their agencies already required while deciding a request for injunctive relief.
“This Court finds no legal basis to order otherwise. ... this Court will not order law enforcement officers, state or federal, to do any more than is their duty to properly effectuate the administration of their agencies. Put another way, the Court finds no reason to order law enforcement agencies to do what they are already duty bound to do.”
In Gonzalez Hernandez v. Oddo, she found no facts showing that the government moved the petitioner to evade jurisdiction or hid his whereabouts from counsel, so she declined to apply an exception to Padilla's default rules.
“Based on the facts presented to this Court, the Court is unable to find that the Government tried to hide the Petitioner's whereabouts from his counsel, moved the Petitioner to evade this Court's jurisdiction or any other facts that would support the application of an exception to the default rules established in Padilla.”
Procedural preferences
In RT Rogers Oil Company, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company, she denied leave to file an untimely summary-judgment response and granted the motion to strike it, while also denying the suggestion that summary judgment should be granted as unopposed.
“That Defendant's 44 Suggestion of Unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED and that Defendant's 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment be GRANTED; Further, that the 45 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Out of Time be DENIED and the Defendant's 47 MOTION to Strike ... be GRANTED.”
In Cabreja Pena v. Warden Stewart Detention Center, she transferred the habeas case to the petitioner's district of confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), finding transfer served the interests of justice.
“The Court finds that transfer of this case ... rather than dismissal, serves the interests of justice given the Petitioner's confinement in that district.”
Cautions
In Marfork Coal Company, Inc. v. Smith, she found the protesters' argument about the broader environmental merits of mountaintop mining irrelevant to the trespass and civil-conspiracy claims before the court when deciding preliminary injunctive relief.
“Defendants' assertion ignores that Plaintiff alleged three claims against Defendants as a result of the alleged trespass ... The Court finds Defendants' argument wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the claims asserted by Plaintiff.”
In Northcraft v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, she granted summary judgment on some counts and for some defendants while denying it on other counts and defendants.
“The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Count IV, GRANTED as to Count I for Defendant Beaver and GRANTED as to Count II for Defendant WVDCR, GRANTED as to Defendants Tim Bowen and ‘John Doe’, DENIED as to Counts III and V for Defendant WVDCR, and DENIED as to Count I for Defendants Hale and WVDCR.”
In Webb v. Raleigh County Sheriff's Department, she separated immunity and remaining claims for each defendant when deciding three summary-judgment motions.
“The above findings result in a patchwork of potential liability and questions of fact for the jury.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Upon consideration of the motion and the opposition thereto, the undersigned finds that jurisdiction is proper. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. ... For the reasons stated above, the Court does hereby ORDER that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Document No. 20) be DENIED.”
“Upon consideration of said motions, the memoranda in support thereof and in opposition thereto, the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's motion and the entire record herein, the undersigned GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's Motion For a Preliminary Injunction and DENIES Defendants' Motion For View.”
“The undersigned finds that Defendants' request is immaterial and irrelevant to the claims currently before the court. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is denied.”
“The district of confinement is the Western District of Pennsylvania. ... Venue properly lies in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Court finds that transfer of this case to the Western District of Pennsylvania, rather than dismissal, serves the interests of justice given the Petitioner's confinement in that district. ... Wherefore, after thorough review and careful consideration, the Court ORDERS that this matter be TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Pennsylvania.”
“The district of confinement is the Middle District of Georgia. ... Venue properly lies in the Middle District of Georgia. The Court finds that transfer of this case to the Middle District of Georgia, rather than dismissal, serves the interests of justice given the Petitioner's confinement in that district. ... the Court ORDERS that this matter be TRANSFERRED to the Middle District of Georgia.”
“the Court ORDERS that the Petition be GRANTED”
“be GRANTED and that the Petitioner be RELEASED from custody immediately.”
“1. That Deputy Hajash’s Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED to the extent it seeks immunity for Plaintiffs excessive force claim and DENIED to the extent it seeks immunity for Plaintiffs Due Process claims and immunity under West Virginia law for Plaintiffs state law claims;”
“2. That Deputy Kade’s Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED to the extent it seeks immunity for Plaintiffs excessive force claim; and dismissal of claims against him in his Official Capacity; and DENIED to the extent it seeks immunity for Plaintiffs Due Process claims;”
“3. That the Motion for Summary Judgment of Raleigh County Commission, Sheriff Moore and Deputy Tanner be GRANTED to the extent it seeks summary judgment as to Sheriff Moore and Deputy Tanner; dismissal of Plaintiffs federal claims against the Raleigh County Commission; dismissal of Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages against the Raleigh County Commission; and dismissal of Plaintiffs claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against the Raleigh County Commission; and DENIED to the extent that the Raleigh County Commission seeks immunity under West Virginia Code Section 7-14A-4 or under 29-12A-4(c)(2).”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Objection to Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Elect [Docket 249], AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge VanDervort’s July 26, 2010, Memorandum Opinion [Docket 241], and ORDERS the Motion to Elect [Docket 165] DENIED.”
“the Court does hereby ORDER that Defendant, Credit One Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Document 10) be GRANTED, and Plaintiffs claims are hereby REFERRED to arbitration”
“the Court does hereby ORDER that the Defendant Greenbrier Hotel Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 106) be DENIED.”
“the Court ORDERS that Defendant Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. ’s Motion to Dismiss (Document 8) be DENIED as to Counts I, II, IV,- and V, and GRANTED as to Count III.”
“Defendant’s Bruen-Based Motion to Dismiss (Document 62) be DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, and for the Court to Further Consider Defendant’s Bruen-Based Motion to Dismiss (Document 61) seeks withdrawal of his guilty plea, the Court ORDERS that the same be DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled caseload includes a trespass and civil-conspiracy injunction dispute tied to a mountaintop-mining protest, prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, a Section 2255 motion to vacate sentence, Social Security appeals, insurance and contract disputes, a qui tam False Claims Act case, and a 2026 wave of Section 2241 immigration-detention petitions.
- A Title IX education suit and a Fair Credit Reporting Act suit filed in 2026 had not reached a motion ruling as of July 2026.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Southern District of West Virginia, not for Judge Berger: 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 | 470 | 10 months |
| Closed with no court action | 16 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 441 | 10.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 19.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 470 | 10 months |
| Sep 2024 | 469 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 473 | 11.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 471 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 939 | 14.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 3,013 | 62.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 41,342 | 53.9 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 Berger with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Berger, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Berger's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace