James K. Singleton, Jr.
How Judge Singleton rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Singleton no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Singleton
James Keith Singleton, Jr. served as a United States District Judge for the District of Alaska after receiving his commission on May 14, 1990. He was chief judge from 1995 to 2002 and took senior status on January 27, 2005. In October 2021, the court recognized his upcoming transition to inactive status.
How Judge Singleton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Smith’s habeas case, the court deferred to the state court’s credibility finding about his confessions because he did not rebut it with clear and convincing evidence.
“This Court must defer to the state court’s finding that the new evidence was not credible unless Smith rebuts the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”
In Clark v. Adams, Singleton denied habeas relief on a prosecutorial-misconduct claim after finding that an admonition, the prosecutor’s correction, and defense counsel’s response mitigated the improper remark.
“Thus, this Court cannot say that the improper prosecutorial comment in this case affected the jury’s ability to judge the evidence fairly.”
Procedural preferences
A pro se litigant's own mistaken belief about when a filing deadline runs is not, by itself, grounds for equitable tolling of the one-year federal habeas limitations period, even when the miss is small.
“a mistaken belief regarding the filing deadline of a federal habeas petition is not a ground for equitable tolling that would preserve the timeliness of a late-filed petition.”
In Gross v. Graham, Singleton denied a postjudgment Rule 60(b) motion to reopen a habeas case as an unauthorized successive petition. He distinguished an attack on the earlier proceeding’s integrity from a request for another merits determination.
“a motion that does not attack 'the integrity of the proceedings, but in effect asks for a second chance to have the merits determined favorably' raises a claim that takes it outside the bounds of Rule 60(b) and within the scope of AEDPA's limitations on second or successive habeas corpus petitions.”
Cautions
In Stepanov v. Johnson, he explained that appointment of counsel was not required in the habeas proceeding absent an order granting discovery or an evidentiary hearing.
“there is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings ... [a]ppointment of counsel is not required in a habeas corpus proceeding in the absence of an order granting discovery or an evidentiary hearing.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for untimeliness.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.”
“Respondent's motion at Docket No. 7 is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED THAT the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED.”
“the Dispositive Motion filed by plaintiff James Anthony Morris at docket 61 is DENIED”
“the motions of defendants Dr. M. Penner, Rick Manuel, and Linda L. Rianda at dockets 67, 70, and 74, respectively, are GRANTED”
“the motions for summary judgment filed by Dr. Douglas C. Peterson at Docket No. 87 and Cheryl Pliler at Docket No. 88, are GRANTED.”
“the Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees at Docket No. 51 is DENIED as moot.”
“the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED”
“the Motion for an Oral Hearing at Docket No. 12 is DENIED”
“the Motion for the Appointment of Counsel at Docket No. 13 is DENIED”
“the motion for reconsideration at Docket No. 16 is DENIED.”
Sitting by designation in the Eastern District of California, Singleton found that a post-judgment filing sought review in the Ninth Circuit rather than Rule 59 reconsideration. He stated that the petition should be forwarded to the Ninth Circuit; his discussion of a possible Rule 59 motion was conditional.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 44 days (N = 9).
Singleton's final active docket was dominated by state-prisoner habeas petitions, with smaller groups of civil-rights and federal sentence-challenge cases. His earlier service included the broader civil and criminal work of an Alaska district judge.
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 |
| 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.
A historical record
Judge Singleton no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.