Hezekiah Russel Holland
How Judge Holland rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Holland
Hezekiah Russel Holland is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Holland received a commission on July 16, 1984. Judge Holland assumed senior status on September 18, 2001.
Judge Holland's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Holland'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).
- Procedure for Access and Management of Sealed, Restricted and Ex Parte Documents (Second Amended) ↗
- Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Appointment of Counsel and Procedures for Compassionate Release Motions ↗
- Electronic Communication Devices in the Courtroom ↗
How Judge Holland decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bradshaw v. Dahlstrom and Winkelman, he found qualified immunity because decisions about incarceration credits left officials uncertain about how the law applied to probation credits.
“There are meaningful differences between incarceration and probation that make the applicability of Weaver and Lynce reasonably uncertain to government officials applying HB 49.”
In a negligence suit arising from a Navy watchstander’s shooting, the court held that the complaint and administrative claim did not establish an intentional tort, so that exception did not require dismissal.
“Plaintiff's amended complaint never alleges that Udell acted intentionally or that Udell assaulted Jayson Vinberg. Rather, it speaks of Vinberg being shot by ten rounds from Udell's personal weapon, which is an ambiguous statement at best in terms of intent.”
In a debt collection dispute, Alaska’s statutory protection against waiver of consumer remedies persuaded the court to reject a contractual forum selection clause that would have sent the case to Illinois.
“Transferring this case to an Illinois court, which would apply Illinois state law in assessing Plaintiff’s claims, would violate Alaska’s public policy to protect consumers from unfair trade practices.”
Procedural preferences
In Dutchuk v. Yesner, he compelled the plaintiffs to answer a disputed interrogatory fully.
“Therefore, plaintiffs are compelled to fully answer this interrogatory.”
In Kendall Dealership Holdings v. Warren Distribution, he rejected a proposed expert addendum as an attempt to strengthen or deepen the prior report.
“Shideh's proffered addendum is nothing more than an attempt to strengthen or deepen his prior report.”
In Miller-Mendel, Inc. v. Alaska State Troopers, Holland entered an order advising counsel of a procedure to follow before filing a motion to dismiss.
“ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS: Advising counsel of the procedure to follow prior to filing a motion to dismiss.”
In Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium v. Premera Blue Cross, he issued a written order explaining summary judgment denials he had announced after oral argument.
“After hearing oral argument, the court denied both motions on the record. What follows is a brief order explaining the court's denial of the motions.”
In Miller-Mendel, Inc. v. Alaska State Troopers, he granted a stay pending resolution of the Oklahoma case.
“ORDER granting 18 Motion to Stay. This case is stayed pending resolution of the Oklahoma Case.”
In a Native allotment dispute, required the plaintiff to finish the available administrative appeal before seeking a court order directing correction of the certificate. The court found the appeal was not futile.
“Shade must exhaust his administrative remedy.”
Cautions
In Givens v. Oenga, he found that the movant had not shown the absence of a reasonably probable successful defense to the claim underlying a request for prejudgment attachment.
“Givens' evidence and arguments fail to establish the absence of any reasonably probable, successful defense.”
In Itta v. Harvey, he dismissed the complaint and gave the plaintiff 14 days to file an amended complaint.
“Itta's complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Amended complaint due within 14 days.”
In Shade v. United States Department of the Interior, Holland denied further leave to amend the claims against Chaney. He found amendment futile after the plaintiff had already had several opportunities to amend.
“Plaintiff is not given leave to amend as amendment would be futile, and plaintiff has already been given several opportunities to amend.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The defendants' motions to dismiss are granted. This case is dismissed.”
“Because Judge Bentley's actions all fall within his judicial capacity and there is no evidence that his judicial actions were taken in the absence of all jurisdiction, the Court finds that absolute immunity precluding this action from proceeding against Judge Bentley.”
“Defendants' motion for partial dismissal is GRANTED. Count I of Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, as well as Count IV to the extent it seeks relief based on the claim that KPD Ordinance 2024-07 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.”
“Based on the preceding discussion, Defendants' motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is hereby GRANTED.”
“The United States' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to the dismissal of the United States Navy and Bradley Udell. The United States Navy and Bradley Udell are dismissed as defendants. The United States' motion to dismiss is otherwise denied.”
“the court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.”
“Plaintiff's petition for a preliminary injunction is denied.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment that CMS cannot authorize defendants to deny providing ABA therapy under the EPSDT program. Plaintiffs' cross-motion is otherwise denied.”
“After careful consideration of all the evidence submitted by the parties, including defendant's affidavits, the court denies defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing and denies defendant's Section 2255 motion.”
“Givens' motion for a writ of attachment in the form of an injunction seeking the sequestration of money expected to be deposited into Oenga's BFTA account is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion is granted as to the portion of its first claim for relief involving the stock attachments and shoe assembly track to that extent that this merchandise is 'unused.' It is granted as to defendant's contract claims in counterclaim Count One and defendant's trademark claims for injunctive relief in counterclaim Count Two. Plaintiff's motion is otherwise denied.”
“The University defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiffs' Dutchuk, Wells, Johnson and Doe VI's traditional or post-reporting Title IX claims in Counts I, II, and III are dismissed as untimely.”
“The University's motion to compel is granted as to the discrete discovery requests discussed above.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 82.5 days (N = 6).
Holland's reviewed civil docket spans personal injury, product liability, admiralty, insurance, Social Security, employment discrimination, benefits, patent, and federal public-lands disputes, reflecting the broad calendar of a senior judge in a small district.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 3 |
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 Alaska, not for Judge Holland: 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 | 235 | 10.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 38 | 10.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 191 | 9.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 2 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 235 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 230 | 9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 259 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 358 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 281 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 263 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 336 | 8.3 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 Holland with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Holland, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Holland's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace