🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

William Joseph Nealon Jr.

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania district Deceased · served 1963–2018 Appointed by John F. Kennedy (Democratic) 20 signed orders read

Judge Nealon no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Nealon decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Nealon treated directly conflicting testimony about a document's authenticity as a trial issue that defeated summary judgment for either side.

“There is a question of fact at issue as Plaintiff has testified that she did not sign the mortgage in question and her husband declares that she did initial and sign it”

Procedural preferences

He gave meaningful weight to the chosen forum's connection to the alleged conduct when the transfer movant had not established that another district better served the interests of justice.

“The Middle District of Pennsylvania has a local interest in resolving the alleged violations and, accordingly, Defendant’s motion to transfer will be denied at this time.”

At the pleadings stage, Nealon read the complaint as a whole and drew reasonable inferences for the nonmoving party before deciding whether a claim could proceed.

“Reading the complaint in its entirety and making all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant”

Cautions

In disability appeals, he scrutinized whether the administrative record actually supported the agency's work-capacity findings and remanded when it did not.

“The Court’s review of the administrative record reveals that the decision of the Commissioner is not supported by-substantial evidence.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Rode v. United States
· 1992-11-25
Motions to dismiss (United States) Granted

“Thomas Rode’s claim should be dismissed due to his failure to file an administrative claim with the United States Air Force as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)”

Motion for sanctions (United States) Denied

“the government’s request for sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel will be denied.”

LaRosa v. Cove Haven, Inc.
· 1993-03-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the court will deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”

Durham v. United States
· 1998-04-24
Motions to dismiss (Commonwealth defendants) Granted in part

“The Motion is now ripe for determination and for the following reasons, the Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.”

Burden v. Wilkes-Barre Area School District
· 1998-02-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) of Defendant Wilkes-Barre Area School District is GRANTED;”

Boykin v. SIENA HOUSE GAUDENZIA PROGRAM
· 2006-11-09
Motions to dismiss (Commonwealth defendants) Granted

“The motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the Commonwealth Defendants (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (Gaudenzia defendants) Granted

“The motion for summary judgment (Doc. 1), filed on behalf of the Gaudenzia Defendants is GRANTED Summary Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Gaudenzia Defendants and against the Plaintiff.”

Motion for appointment of counsel (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel, (Doc. 76) is DISMISSED as moot.”

United States v. Singh
· 1999-03-03
Summary judgment (United States) Denied

“Therefore, in accordance with the analysis set forth in this memorandum, the Government’s motion for summary judgment is denied.”

Ultramed, Inc. v. Beiersdorf-Jobst, Inc.
· 1998-06-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“After considering all of the arguments advanced by defendant, the motion for summary judgment is denied.”

Millbrook v. United States
· 2014-03-25
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doe. 63) is GRANTED in part.”

Request for joinder (defendants) Granted

“The request that the Bivens claim against Defendant Edinger regarding a March 5, 2010, incident be joined into Plaintiffs FTCA action, Millbrook v. United States, Civ. No. 3:11-cv-131 (M.D.Pa.), regarding the same incident is GRANTED.”

Thompson v. Smeal
· 2014-10-16
Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 163) is DENIED;”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (Doc. 167) is DENIED;”

Morse v. Allied Interstate, LLC
· 2014-12-10
Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment will be granted because the evidence clearly establishes that its system is an ATDS as determined by the FCC.”

Styer v. Professional Medical Management, Inc.
· 2015-07-15
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Thus, Plaintiffs motion for summary, judgment will be granted”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment win be denied.”

Brown v. Hannah
· 2012-02-06
Motions to dismiss (Corrections defendants) Granted

“For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 205.5 days (N = 10).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 190 days (N = 4).

The twenty enumerated early-2005 cases included eight habeas matters, six foreclosures, four prisoner civil-rights cases, one disability appeal, and one motor-vehicle case. All twenty were terminated. This narrow archival cohort does not establish Nealon's tenure-wide caseload mix.

A historical record

Judge Nealon no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.