Stephanie A. Hambrick
How Judge Hambrick rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hambrick
Stephanie A. Hambrick has served as a United States magistrate judge for the District of Wyoming since April 2022. She is based at the Yellowstone Justice Center in Mammoth Hot Springs. Before joining the bench, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney and held public defender and district attorney roles in Natrona County.
Judge Hambrick's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hambrick, 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.
- Rule 26(f) Conference Checklist ↗
- Joint Discovery and Case Management Plan ↗
- Guidelines for Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Bench Trials ↗
- Final Pretrial Order for Jury Trial ↗
- Final Pretrial Order for Bench Trial ↗
- Procedure for Direct Testimony by Written Statement ↗
Key rules
Trial
In a bench trial, the plaintiff files proposed findings and conclusions first, then the defendant responds.
“Plaintiff shall first serve and file proposed findings and conclusions. Defendant shall then”
Trial
Number proposed factual findings so the opposing party can admit or deny each sentence.
“the opposing parties will be able to admit or deny each separate sentence of the”
Trial
The defendant’s factual response must use the corresponding numbers from the plaintiff’s proposed findings.
“shall bear the same number as the corresponding sentence in Plaintiff=s narrative”
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 Hambrick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Allows pleading amendments filed before the scheduling deadline when the opponent has already pursued discovery on the proposed new parties and meaningful discovery time remains.
“In sum, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Amend prior to the deadline, Defendant admits they have already propounded discovery on Plaintiffs regarding the new parties, and there are still seven weeks before the Fact Discovery deadline on November 7, 2024. Accordingly, the Court finds no prejudice.”
Compels production when the disputed material was created through an established business process rather than to obtain legal advice or prepare for litigation.
“The Court finds the information which the Defendant claims is privileged in the PowerPoint presentation is not protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.”
Requires a plaintiff opposing qualified immunity to identify clearly established law matching the specific regulated conduct, not merely general constitutional principles.
“Plaintiff, who has the burden on this issue, has made no showing beyond general Fourth Amendment law that the Defendants violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“THEREFORE, the Motion for Client to Work in Any Park Building for Which He is Given a Work Order is hereby DENIED.”
“Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion at ECF No. 148 is hereby DENIED without prejudice. The Plaintiff may refile his Motion once the bankruptcy stay is lifted.”
“ORDER by the US Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Hambrick GRANTING 72 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 70 Scheduling Order.”
“Defendants’ Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memoranda in Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Joint Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“This Court finds oral argument unnecessary, therefore the Motion for Hearing [ECF No. 17] is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED, the MOTION for Order for Leave to File Motion to Challenge Certification of Scope of Employment Declaration [ECF No. 32] is hereby DENIED.”
“Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion is DENIED due to lack of jurisdiction;”
“Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion is DENIED due to lack of jurisdiction;”
“The request to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [ECF 38] is GRANTED.”
“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel [ECF No. 55] filed by the Consolidated Plaintiffs is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The thirteen sampled matters include consent civil litigation, referred discovery and scheduling work, a referred voting case, Yellowstone petty-offense proceedings, and post-sentence criminal motions. Eight matters were terminated and five remained pending; one civil referral was filed before Hambrick joined the bench and is excluded from the duration list.
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 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 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 United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, not for Judge Hambrick: 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 | 240 | 9.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 74 | 4.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 70 | 5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 86 | 15.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 21.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 240 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 184 | 9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 202 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 219 | 12 months |
| Sep 2021 | 210 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 189 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 195 | 8.9 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 Hambrick with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hambrick, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hambrick's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace