United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
| Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
|---|
| Third Circuit |
|
| Judgeships |
| Posts: 22 |
| Judges: 22 |
| Vacancies: 0 |
| Judges |
| Chief: Mitchell Goldberg |
| Active judges: Wendy Beetlestone, Mary Kay Costello, Paul Diamond, John Gallagher, Mitchell Goldberg, Catherine Henry, Kelley Hodge, Mark A. Kearney, Chad F. Kenney Sr., Joseph F. Leeson Jr., Karen Marston, Gerald Austin McHugh Jr., John Frank Murphy, Gerald J. Pappert, Mia Roberts Perez, Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro, Juan Sanchez, Jeffrey L. Schmehl, Kai Scott, Gail Weilheimer, Joshua Wolson, John M. Younge Senior judges: |
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is one of 94 United States district courts. It is one of the original thirteen federal judiciary districts created by the Judiciary Act of 1789.
When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit based in downtown Philadelphia at the James Byrne Courthouse.
Vacancies
- See also: Current federal judicial vacancies
There are two current vacancies on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, out of the court's 22 judicial positions.
Pending nominations
There are no pending nominees for this court.
Active judges
Article III judges
| Judge | Appointed By | Assumed Office | Bachelors | Law |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 22, 2004 - |
Columbia, 1974 |
University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1977 |
||
| June 24, 2004 - |
City University of New York, City College, 1978 |
University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1981 |
||
| October 31, 2008 - |
Ithaca College, 1981 |
Temple University Law, 1986 |
||
| June 19, 2013 - |
University of Puerto Rico, 1972 |
University of Puerto Rico School of Law, 1975 |
||
| June 25, 2013 - |
Dickinson College, 1977 |
University of Toledo Law, 1980 |
||
| March 28, 2014 - |
St. Joseph's University |
University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1979 |
||
| November 21, 2014 - |
Liverpool University, 1984 |
University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1993 |
||
| December 4, 2014 - |
Villanova University, 1985 |
University of Notre Dame, 1988 |
||
| December 4, 2014 - |
Villanova University, 1984 |
Villanova University Law, 1987 |
||
| December 5, 2014 - |
DeSales University, 1977 |
Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, 1980 |
||
| October 24, 2018 - |
Villanova University |
Temple University |
||
| May 28, 2019 - |
University of Pennsylvania, 1996 |
Harvard Law School, 1999 |
||
| August 20, 2019 - |
Boston University, 1977 |
Howard University, 2011 |
||
| December 20, 2019 - |
Davidson College, 1990 |
Wake Forest University School of Law, 1998 |
||
| December 31, 2019 - |
Long Island University, 1989 |
New York Law School, 1994 |
||
| December 16, 2022 - |
Tufts University |
Temple University, Beasley School of Law |
||
| December 23, 2022 - |
Cornell University, 1999 |
Harvard Law School, 2007 |
||
| December 23, 2022 - |
University of Virginia, 1993 |
University of Richmond School of Law, 1996 |
||
| January 18, 2023 - |
Hampton University, 1991 |
West Virginia University College of Law, 1995 |
||
| September 19, 2024 - |
Temple University, 1998 |
Temple University, Beasley School of Law, 2001 |
||
| December 6, 2024 - |
Drew University, 1991 |
District of Columbia School of Law, 1995 |
||
| January 2, 2025 - |
Hofstra University, 1992 |
Hofstra University School of Law, 1995 |
Active Article III judges by appointing political party
The list below displays the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.
- Democrat appointed: 13
- Republican appointed: 8
Senior judges
| Judge | Appointed By | Assumed Office | Bachelors | Law |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 17, 2001 - |
Villanova University, 1957 |
Temple University Law, 1960 |
||
| April 15, 2002 - |
University of Pennsylvania, 1952 |
Yale Law School, 1957 |
||
| November 20, 2003 - |
Princeton, 1957 |
Yale Law, 1960 |
||
| December 11, 2003 - |
Franklin and Marshall College, 1958 |
College of William and Mary Law, 1962 |
||
| February 11, 2008 - |
Villanova University, 1956 |
Temple University Law, 1959 |
||
| June 8, 2009 - |
Wellesley College, 1955 |
Columbia Law, 1958 |
||
| February 1, 2011 - |
Dickinson College, 1960 |
Dickinson College, 1965 |
||
| October 1, 2011 - |
Princeton, 1962 |
University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1965 |
||
| June 18, 2012 - |
Bowdoin College, 1965 |
New York University Law, 1968 |
||
| July 13, 2012 - |
University of Pennsylvania, 1961 |
University of Pennsylvania, 1964 |
||
| August 31, 2013 - |
Westfield State College, 1967 |
Rutgers University Law, 1978 |
||
| September 28, 2017 - |
Princeton University, 1973 |
Rutgers University School of Law, Camden, 1976 |
||
| October 9, 2018 - |
City University of New York, Brooklyn College, 1967 |
New York Law, 1970 |
||
| March 1, 2021 - |
Assumption College, 1968 |
Temple University Law, 1971 |
||
| March 15, 2021 - |
Southwestern College, 1972 |
The American University, 1975 |
||
| June 1, 2021 - |
Temple University, 1973 |
Temple University Law, 1976 |
||
| December 31, 2021 - |
Adelphi University, 1970 |
State University of New York, Buffalo, 1977 |
Senior judges by appointing political party
The list below displays the number of senior judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.
- Democrat appointed: 3
- Republican appointed: 14
Magistrate judges
Federal magistrate judges are federal judges who serve in United States district courts, but they are not appointed by the president and they do not serve life terms. Magistrate judges are assigned duties by the district judges in the district in which they serve. They may preside over most phases of federal proceedings, except for criminal felony trials. The specific duties of a magistrate judge vary from district to district, but the responsibilities always include handling matters that would otherwise be on the dockets of the district judges. Full-time magistrate judges serve for renewable terms of eight years. Some federal district courts have part-time magistrate judges, who serve for renewable terms of four years.[1]
| Judge | Appointed By | Assumed Office | Bachelors | Law |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 3, 1996 - |
West Chester University, 1969 |
University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1985 |
||
| March 21, 2005 - |
St. Bonaventure University, 1979 |
Temple University Law, 1986 |
||
| April 26, 2005 - |
Brown University, 1967 |
Villanova Law, 1971 |
||
| April 9, 2007 - |
Vassar College, 1983 |
Villanova University, 1989 |
||
| October 29, 2007 - |
University of Scranton, 1986 |
Temple University Law, 1989 |
||
| April 21, 2014 - |
University of Pittsburgh, 1981 |
Temple University Law, 1984 |
||
| May 5, 2014 - |
Rutgers University, 1979 |
Rutgers Law, 1982 |
||
|
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
May 24, 2021 - |
West Chester University |
Widener University School of Law |
|
|
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
November 12, 2021 - |
Franklin and Marshall College, 1986 |
Temple University, Beasley School of Law, 1989 |
Former chief judges
In order to qualify for the office of chief judge in an Article III circuit or district court, or on the United States Court of International Trade, a judge must be in active service and hold seniority over the court's commissioned judges who are 64 years of age or under, have served one year or more, and have not previously served as chief judge.[2]
In the event that no judge on the court meets those qualifications, the youngest judge in regular active service aged 65 years or more and who has served as a judge for one year or more shall become chief judge. If no judge meets those qualifications, the judge holding seniority in active service who has not served as chief before shall become the chief judge.[3][4][5]
The chief judge serves for a term of seven years until another judge becomes eligible to serve in the position. No judge is permitted to serve as chief judge after reaching the age of 70 years unless no other judge is qualified to serve.[3][4][5]
Unlike the chief justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of their term and does not create a vacancy on the court by the fact of their promotion.[2][3][4][5]
On the United States Court of Federal Claims, the chief judge is selected by the president of the United States. The judge must be less than 70 years of age. A chief may serve until they reach age 70 or until another judge is designated by the president as the new chief judge. If the president selects a new chief judge, the former chief judge may continue active service on the court for the remainder of their appointed term.[6]
|
|
Former judges
For more about the judges of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, see category:Former federal judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania counties (click for larger map)
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has original jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.
The geographic jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania consists of all the following counties in the eastern part of the state:
Caseloads
This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in September 2024. Click [show] below for more information on caseload terms and definitions.
| Caseload statistics explanation | |
|---|---|
| Term | Explanation |
| Cases filed and terminated | The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated or decided by the court in a calendar year. The chart below reflects the table columns Cases filed and Cases terminated. |
| Average time from filing to disposition | The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to date of disposition (acquittal, sentencing, dismissal, etc.). The chart below reflects the table columns Median time (Criminal) and Median time (Civil). |
| Starting case load | The number of cases pending from the previous calendar year. |
| Cases filed | The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated in a calendar year. |
| Cases terminated | The total number of civil and criminal lawsuits decided by the court in a calendar year. |
| Remaining cases | The number of civil and criminal cases pending at the end of a given year. |
| Median time (Criminal) | The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition. In criminal cases, the date of disposition occurs on the day of sentencing or acquittal/dismissal. |
| Median time (Civil) | The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition. |
| Three-year civil cases | The number and percent of civil cases that were filed more than three years before the end of the given calendar year. |
| Vacant posts | The number of months during the year an authorized judgeship was vacant. |
| Trial/Post | The number of trials completed divided by the number of authorized judgeships on the court. Trials include evidentiary trials, hearings on temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions. |
| United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania caseload stats, 2010-2023 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Cases Filed | Cases Terminated | Cases Pending | Number of Judgeships | Vacant Judgeship Months | Average Total Filings per Judgeship | Trials Completed per Judgeship | Median time from filing to disposition, criminal | Median time from filing to disposition, civil | Three-year civil cases (#) | Three-year civil cases (%) |
| 2010 | 56,815 | 86,453 | 29,354 | 22 | 17 | 2,583 | 16 | 14 | 6 | 8,671 | 31 |
| 2011 | 48,659 | 55,957 | 20,144 | 22 | 38 | 2,212 | 15 | 14 | 2 | 5,690 | 30 |
| 2012 | 11,799 | 17,046 | 15,227 | 22 | 60 | 536 | 16 | 16 | 15 | 3,045 | 23 |
| 2013 | 11,274 | 14,517 | 12,017 | 22 | 74 | 512 | 14 | 15 | 9 | 865 | 8 |
| 2014 | 10,815 | 12,560 | 10,335 | 22 | 64 | 492 | 13 | 16 | 5 | 2,001 | 23 |
| 2015 | 10,502 | 12,980 | 7,870 | 22 | 24 | 477 | 12 | 14 | 5 | 1,404 | 22 |
| 2016 | 8,992 | 8,710 | 8,156 | 22 | 36 | 409 | 10 | 14 | 6 | 1,519 | 22 |
| 2017 | 8,162 | 8,551 | 7,747 | 22 | 48 | 371 | 10 | 15 | 6 | 1,297 | 20 |
| 2018 | 7,644 | 7,698 | 7,689 | 22 | 67 | 347 | 6 | 14 | 6 | 1,015 | 16 |
| 2019 | 8,382 | 7,425 | 8,704 | 22 | 59 | 381 | 9 | 15 | 6 | 1,507 | 21 |
| 2020 | 7,714 | 6,262 | 10,123 | 22 | 21 | 351 | 3 | 14 | 6 | 1,551 | 18 |
| 2021 | 6,918 | 7,113 | 9,892 | 22 | 44 | 314 | 6 | 22 | 7 | 1,831 | 21 |
| 2022 | 6,495 | 7,081 | 9,280 | 22 | 48 | 295 | 7 | 21 | 7 | 2,370 | 30 |
| 2023 | 8,064 | 8,200 | 8,090 | 22 | 38.4 | 367 | 6 | 22 | 5 | 2,057 | 30 |
| Average | 15,160 | 18,611 | 11,759 | 22 | 46 | 689 | 10 | 16 | 6 | 2,487 | 22 |
History
The United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania was one of the original thirteen districts created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. In 1818, it was divided into two districts, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District court.
In 1901, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania was carved out of the Eastern and Western districts.[7]
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 14, 1789 | The Judiciary Act of 1789 organized Pennsylvania as one judicial district with one authorized judgeship, appeals going to the United States Court of Appeals for the Middle Circuit. |
| February 13, 1801 | The Judiciary Act of 1801 divided the federal courts into six circuits and assigned the District of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit. |
| April 29, 1802 | The Judiciary Act of 1802, although repealing the Judiciary Act of 1801, repeated breaking the federal courts into six circuits and assigning the District of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit. |
| April 20, 1818 | Eastern District is carved out of the District of Pennsylvania with one authorized judgeship and established as court for appeals and writs of error from decisions in the new Western District. |
| May 15, 1820 | Congress decides that the Eastern District will no longer hear appeals and writs of error from the Western District of Pennsylvania. |
| March 2, 1901 | The Middle District of Pennsylvania is newly-created, carved out of parts of the Eastern and Western districts. |
| April 1, 1904 | A second judgeship is authorized for the Eastern District. |
| February 16, 1914 | A temporary judgeship -- never made permanent -- is authorized for the Eastern District. |
| September 14, 1922 | A temporary judgeship -- never made permanent -- is authorized for the Eastern District. |
| March 3, 1927 | A new judgeship is authorized for the Eastern District. |
| June 16, 1936 | A temporary judgeship is authorized for the Eastern District. |
| June 2, 1938 | Temporary judgeship authorized in June 1936 made permanent |
| May 24, 1940 | A temporary judgeship is authorized for the Eastern District. |
| December 7, 1944 | Temporary judgeship authorized in May 1940 made permanent |
| July 24, 1946 | A temporary judgeship is authorized to serve all three Pennsylvania districts. |
| August 3, 1949 | Two additional judgeships authorized. |
| February 10, 1954 | One additional judgeship authorized. The temporary judgeship created in July 1946 for all three districts assigned exclusively to the Middle District. |
| May 19, 1961 | Three additional judgeships authorized. |
| March 18, 1966 | Three temporary judgeships authorized. One of these positions is never made permanent. |
| June 2, 1970 | Six additional judgeships authorized. Two temporary positions authorized in March 1966 made permanent. |
| December 1, 1990 | Three additional judgeships authorized, for a total of 22 permanent judgeships. One temporary judgeship authorized. |
Judicial posts
The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:[7]
| Year | Statute | Total Seats |
| September 24, 1789 | 1 Stat. 73 | 1 (Whole state) |
| April 20, 1818 | 3 Stat. 462 | 1 |
| April 1, 1904 | 33 Stat. 155 | 2 |
| February 16, 1914 | 38 Stat. 283 | 3(1 Temporary) |
| 1914 | Post Expired | 2 |
| September 14, 1922 | 42 Stat. 837 | 3(1 Temporary) |
| 1925 | Post Expired | 2 |
| March 3, 1927 | 44 Stat. 1347 | 3 |
| June 16, 1936 | 49 Stat. 1523 | 4 (1 temporary) |
| June 2, 1938 | 52 Stat. 780 | 4 |
| May 24, 1940 | 54 Stat. 219 | 5(1 Temporary) |
| December 7, 1944 | 58 Stat. 796 | 5 |
| July 24, 1946 | 60 Stat. 654 | 6(1 shared temporary) |
| August 3, 1949 | 63 Stat. 493 | 8(1 shared temporary) |
| February 10, 1954 | 68 Stat. 8 | 8 |
| May 19, 1961 | 75 Stat. 80 | 11 |
| March 18, 1966 | 80 Stat. 75 | 14(3 Temporary) |
| 1969 | Post Expired | 13 |
| June 2, 1970 | 84 Stat. 294 | 19 |
| December 1, 1990 | 104 Stat. 5089 | 22(1 Temporary) |
Noteworthy cases
For a searchable list of opinions, please see Opinions of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
| • Dismissal of case against the City of Philadelphia for failure to detect child's torture (2014) Judge(s):Richard Surrick (Weston v. City of Philadelphia, et al, 13-6073) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
On May 6, 2014, Judge Richard Surrick dismissed a lawsuit filed against the City of Philadelphia by Vickie Weston, regarding the abuse of her daughter, Beatrice Weston. Beatrice was placed in the custody of her aunt, Linda Weston, in 2002, whom plaintiffs alleged assaulted Beatrice for ten years. Linda had previously been convicted of murder and was on parole.[8] Linda was granted custody of Beatrice after Vickie suffered an aneurysm. A family court judge approved the arrangement, ordering the Department of Human Services (DHS) to check in on Beatrice in the future. In 2011, Beatrice was found to have suffered abuse after police discovered that Linda had entrapped four adults with mental disabilities in her basement in an alleged attempt to steal their Social Security benefits.[8] Vickie filed suit against the City of Philadelphia, alleging that the city showed "deliberate indifference and a reckless disregard" for her parental rights when it placed her daughter in Linda's custody. She also alleged that had DHS performed its duties as ordered by the court, Beatrice's living conditions would have been discovered earlier. Vickie's complaint alleged that her daughter was forced into prostitution, beaten, starved, and made to drink and bathe in her own urine. Beatrice filed her own lawsuit against the city in 2012.[8][9] Judge Surrick dismissed the case, noting that the two-year statute of limitations for filing the claim had expired by the time the case was filed in 2014. Surrick said Vickie's lawsuit should have been filed in 2002 in reference to her parental rights. Surrick also said that, based on rumors, Vickie "knew that [her daughter] was being injured and she knew the cause [yet] took no action."[8] | |
| • Rejection of NFL concussion settlement (2014) Judge(s):Anita Brody (In re: National Football Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, 2:12-md-02323-AB) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
On January 14, 2014, Judge Anita Brody rejected a proposed $675 million settlement between retired professional football players and the National Football League (NFL) over concussion-related issues, citing its potential lack of adequacy. Retired players filed suit in 2011, alleging the NFL's concealment of the risk of and failure to protect players from concussion-related injuries. Almost 5,000 former players filed similar suits, and they were consolidated as multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.[10][11] In August 2013, the parties submitted a proposed settlement, and several months later, in December 2013, Brody assigned a special master to assist her in reviewing it. In January 2014, the retired players structured the case as a class action suit listing more than 20,000 plaintiffs, requesting that Brody grant preliminary approval of the settlement. In her preliminary ruling, Brody said she was concerned about its "fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy." Specifically, Brody was worried that not all retired players with a "qualifying injury" would be paid. Brody requested additional information to prove the veracity of the proposed settlement terms, which would enable parties to seek approval at a later date. The principal terms of the proposed agreement are available here.[10][11] On April 15, 2014, Brody again rejected terms set in the NFL concussion case, issuing a preliminary ruling requesting additional information as to how the $765 million fund would last for more than six decades (65 years) given the number of current and former professional football players with brain injuries. Brody questioned whether the fund was large enough to cover up to 20,000 players' injuries for an extended period of time.[12][13] | |
| • Rock band Fishbone ordered to pay fan after stage-diving accident (2014) Judge(s):Jan DuBois (Myers v. Fishbone, et al., 12-597) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
On February 12, 2014, Judge Jan DuBois ruled that Fishbone, an alternative rock band, must pay approximately $1.4 million to a fan as a result of a poorly executed stage dive.[14] Kimberly Myers filed suit against the band, as well as its lead singer, Angelo Moore, and bassist, John Norwood Fisher, after a 2010 performance in Philadelphia. Moore, the band's lead singer, dove off the stage into the crowd and knocked Myers over, resulting in the fracture of her skull and clavicle and the rupturing of her eardrum. Myers originally filed suit in 2010 and settled with the band's management and concert promoter. She filed suit again in 2012 with claims of negligence against Fishbone, Moore, Fisher, the band's agent, and its touring company. Moore and Fisher failed to respond to the complaint, and a default judgment was entered against them by the court. A hearing was held on damages in May, 2013, but neither Moore nor Fisher made an appearance.[14] In his decision, Judge Dubois noted that both Moore and Fisher "knew that stage diving pose[d] a serious risk of harm to audience members," but band members, and Moore in particular, continued the practice after the incident in question, without any warning to fans in the audience.[14] Dubois awarded Myers $15,846 in out-of-pocket expenses, $351,299 in future medical costs, $750,000 in noneconomic damages, and $250,000 in punitive damages against Moore as he showed, according to DuBois, "little remorse or impetus to change his conduct." The total amount of damages entered in favor of Myers against Moore and Fisher came to $1,367,145.[14] | |
| • Multidistrict asbestos litigation case remanded to Southern Illinois (2014) Judge(s):Eduardo Robreno (Mann v. Anchor Packing, et al, 2:08-89372-ER / MDL-875) | Click for summary→ | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
On January 30, 2014, Judge Eduardo Robreno remanded plaintiff's suit filed on behalf of decedent J.W. Heggie to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.[15] Helen Mann filed suit against Westinghouse Electric Corporation on behalf of Heggie, alleging Heggie was exposed to asbestos after working with Westinghouse’s turbines and switchgear. Mann claimed Heggie developed an asbestos-related disease and lung cancer as a result of the alleged exposure and died as a result. Mann's case was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in October 2008 as part of the Multidistrict Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, though both parties agreed that Illinois law applied to the case. Westinghouse then filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging there was insufficient evidence to establish causation.[15] Judge Robreno granted Westinghouse's motion in part as to Heggie's alleged asbestos exposure from the company's turbines and denied it in part as to Heggie's alleged asbestos exposure from the company's switchgear. Specifically, Robreno said that there was no "clear statement of Illinois law" as to the issue of the "bare metal defense" which would be determinative as to Westinghouse's liability.[15] In so denying summary judgment as to this aspect of the case, Robreno stated:
| |||
| • Discrimination claim in workplace firing proceeds (2014) Judge(s):Lawrence Stengel (Abdul-Latif v. County of Lancaster, et al, 5:12-cv-00948-LS) | Click for summary→ |
|---|---|
|
On January 2, 2014, Judge Lawrence Stengel ruled that Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, must answer to former county employee Betzaida Abdul-Latif's complaint that she was fired in retaliation for her opposition to her workplace's policy requiring English as its only spoken language.[17] Before her termination, Abdul-Latif, a Hispanic woman of Puerto Rican descent, worked as a case manager and career adviser in the Lancaster Employment and Training Agency's (LETA) Employment, Advancement, and Retention Network (EARN). LETA required that all participants in EARN speak only English while in attendance. Several of Abdul-Latif's clients expressed concern regarding the policy, so she suggested they file a complaint. They did so, and Abdul-Latif was terminated shortly thereafter. The county claimed Abdul-Latif was fired not for opposing the policy, but rather because she violated the workplace's email policy. In the case, it was said that other county employees who were not Hispanic had also violated the email policy, but were not fired.[17] Abdul-Latif sued the county and her superiors, alleging employment discrimination and violations of her constitutional right to equal protection. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Stengel granted as to two of Abdul-Latif's claims in January 2014. The judge refused to grant summary judgment as to Abdul-Latif's employment discrimination claims, saying that she "[had] shown that several of her similarly situated co-workers violated the same email policy and received less severe discipline." Stengel further found that the timing of Abdul-Latif's dismissal was "unusually suggestive" due to its "temporal proximity" to her complaints about the county's language policy.[17] | |
| • Death sentence overturned (2013) Judge(s):Anita Brody (Dennis v. Wetzel, 11-1660) | Click for summary→ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
On August 21, 2013, Judge Brody ordered the retrial or release of James Dennis, who was sentenced to death in 1992 after he was convicted of killing Chedell Ray Williams for earrings worth $450.[18] The case against Dennis was based on the testimony of three eyewitnesses and no physical evidence. Neither the murder weapon nor the allegedly stolen earrings were found. There was also no forensic evidence found to tie Dennis to the scene of the crime. Dennis claimed that he was traveling by bus during the time of the murder, which was substantiated by the driver of the bus.[18] Judge Brody ordered the retrial after determining that the evidence against Dennis was inadequate. Brody also criticized Dennis' defense lawyer as doing "the bare minimum." She went on to say that the police targeted Dennis based on and that the investigation appeared inconclusive.[19] In her conclusion Judge Brody wrote:
Prosecutors for the state sought to appeal Brody's ruling but failed. The state later entered into an agreement with Dennis where he would plead "no contest" and be released. Dennis did so and was released from prison on May 13, 2017.[21] | ||||
Federal courthouse
The main courthouse for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the James A. Byrne United States Courthouse in Philadelphia, named after James A. Byrne, a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania from 1953 to 1973.
The courthouse stands 22 stories high. It houses courtrooms, judges' chambers, jury rooms, and prisoner holding areas. The building was remodeled starting in 2000 because the original brick facade had cracked and weakened from settlement over time.[22]
Judges of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania also hold court at the following locations:[23]
- Edward N. Cahn Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Allentown, Pennsylvania
- Holmes Building in Easton, Pennsylvania
- The Gateway Building in Reading, Pennsylvania.
About United States District Courts
The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal courts. There are 94 such courts. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of both law and equity.
There is a United States bankruptcy court and a number of bankruptcy judges associated with each United States district court. Each federal judicial district has at least one courthouse, and most districts have more than one.
There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. District courts in three insular areas—the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands—exercise the same jurisdiction as U.S. district courts. Despite their name, these courts are technically not District Courts of the United States. Judges on these territorial courts do not enjoy the protections of Article III of the Constitution, and serve terms of 10 years rather than for life.
There are 677 U.S. District Court judgeships.[24][25]
The number of federal district judge positions is set by the U.S. Congress in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 133, which authorizes a set number of judge positions, or judgeships, making changes and adjustments in these numbers from time to time.
In order to relieve the pressure of trying the hundreds of thousands of cases brought before the federal district courts each year, many trials are tried by juries, along with a presiding judge.[26]
Appointments by president
The chart below shows the number of district court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through March 1 of the first year of each president's term in office. At this point in the term, no president had made Article III judicial appointments.
Judges by district
- See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts
The table below displays the number of judges in each district and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies in a district and how many pending nominations for that district are before the United States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line, and you can navigate through the pages by clicking the arrows at the top of the table. It is updated every Monday.
Judicial selection
The district courts are served by Article III federal judges who are appointed for life during "good behavior." They are usually first recommended by senators (or members of the House, occasionally). The President of the United States makes the appointments, which must then be confirmed by the U.S. Senate in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution.[25]
| Step |  Candidacy Proceeds
|
 Candidacy Halts
|
|---|---|---|
| 1. Recommendation made by Congress Member to the President | President Nominates to Senate Judiciary Committee | President Declines Nomination |
| 2. Senate Judiciary Committee interviews Candidate | Sends candidate to Senate for confirmation | Returns candidate to President, who may re-nominate to Committee |
| 3. Senate votes on candidate confirmation | Candidate becomes federal judge | Candidate does not receive judgeship |
Magistrate judges
The district courts are also served by magistrate judges. Congress created the judicial office of federal magistrate in 1968. In 1990, the position title was changed to magistrate judge. The chief judge of each district appoints one or more magistrate judges, who discharge many of the ancillary duties of district judges so judges can handle more trials. There are both full-time and part-time magistrate judge positions, and these positions are assigned to the district courts according to caseload criteria (subject to funding by Congress). A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years; a part-time magistrate judge's term of office is four years.[27]
See also
- United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- United States District Court for the District of Delaware
- United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
- United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
- United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
- District Court of the Virgin Islands
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- Official website of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
- Opinions of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
- US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Footnotes
- ↑ U.S. District Court - NH, "Magistrate Judges," archived April 14, 2014
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 United States Courts, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed January 25, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "28 U.S. Code § 136 - Chief judges; precedence of district judges," accessed January 25, 2022
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "28 U.S. Code § 258 - Chief judges; precedence of judges," accessed January 25, 2022
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "28 U.S. Code § 45 - Chief judges; precedence of judges," accessed January 25, 2022
- ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "28 U.S. Code § 171 - Appointment and number of judges; character of court; designation of chief judge," accessed January 25, 2022
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Federal Judicial Center, "The U.S. District Courts and the Federal Judiciary," accessed April 26, 2021
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Philadelphia Inquirer, "Judge tosses suit in Tacony abuse case," May 14, 2014
- ↑ Courthouse News Service, "'The Worst Abuse I Have Ever Seen'," March 26, 2013
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Sports World News, "NFL Concussion Lawsuit: Federal Judge Rejects Settlement With Retired Players Of $765 Million As Too Small," January 14, 2014
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Philadelphia Inquirer, "Judge rejects, for now, NFL concussion settlement," January 16, 2014
- ↑ Associated Press, "Judge again rejects deal in NFL concussion cases," April 16, 2014
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Federal judge holds off decision on NFL concussion settlement," April 16, 2014
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 Hollywood Reporter, "Will This $1 Million Court Ruling Stop Musicians from Stage Diving?" February 14, 2014
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 Legal Newsline Legal Journal, "Philly asbestos judge to let Illinois federal court decide ‘bare metal defense’ issue," March 4, 2014
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Courthouse News Service, "Judge Allows Retaliation Claim Against Pa. County," January 13, 2014
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs nameddennismurder - ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, "Dennis v. Wetzel," August 21, 2013
- ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, "Dennis v. Wetzel," August 21, 2013
- ↑ NBC News, "From Death Row to Freedom: The Long Journey of James Dennis," May 16, 2017
- ↑ EasternScaffolding.com, "Renovation of the Byrne Federal Courthouse," accessed May 26, 2021
- ↑ United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, "Court Locations," accessed April 27, 2021
- ↑ US Courts, "Federal Judgeships," accessed May 10, 2021 (archived)
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 U.S. Courts, "United States District Court Federal Judiciary Frequently Asked Questions," accessed May 10, 2021 (archived)
- ↑ United States District Courts, "District Courts," accessed May 10, 2021
- ↑ The 'Lectric Law Library, "Understanding the U.S. federal courts"
