Joshua Dale Dunlap

How Judge Dunlap rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Donald Trump (Republican)
Commissioned
2025-11-07
Education
Pensacola Christian College, B.A., 2005; Notre Dame Law School, J.D., 2008
Signed orders read
17

How Judge Dunlap decides

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

What persuades

Begins with statutory text and applies its ordinary meaning before turning to policy considerations.

“Our role, prescribed by Article III of the Constitution, is to 'declare what the law is, not what we think the law should be'”

Requires a concrete factual basis and a focused request before allowing jurisdictional discovery.

“Because Plaintiffs have not made a 'colorable claim of jurisdiction,' we conclude that jurisdictional discovery is not appropriate as to EPR.”

Procedural preferences

Confines dismissal review to well-pleaded allegations and does not treat facts supplied only in briefing as part of the complaint.

“Again, facts asserted only in briefing do not suffice.”

Cautions

Treats unexplained delay in seeking relief from judgment as a serious finality problem, even for an assertedly void judgment.

“Disagreement with a federal court's finding is no justification to ignore it.”

Will vacate a damages calculation when the statutory prerequisites lack evidentiary support, even if some recovery may remain available on remand.

“The plain language of Section 9-1-47 requires us to vacate the district court's homemaker damages award as both unsupported by the evidence and grossly excessive.”

Signed rulings

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

United States v. Del-Valle-Camacho
24-2076, 24-2077 · 2026-01-14
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Del-Valle-Camacho's sentence is affirmed.”

United States v. Maldonado-Velazquez
24-1746 · 2026-01-16
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“For all these reasons, the sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED.”

United States ex rel. Sargent v. Collins
25-1153 · 2026-01-22
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“We affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Kolackovsky v. Town of Rockport
25-1275 · 2026-01-22
Appeal (plaintiffs-appellants) Denied

“Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed.”

Urizar-Mota v. United States
25-1131 · 2026-03-27
Appeal (defendant-appellant United States) Granted in part

“For all these reasons, the district court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.”

United States v. Roache
25-1157 · 2026-03-30
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“We affirm the district court's judgment.”

Putnam v. EPR Properties
25-1857 · 2026-04-28
Appeal (plaintiffs-appellants) Granted in part

“We reverse the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against Premier and remand with instructions to the district court to permit jurisdictional discovery into Premier's relationship to VVV and involvement in the Hotel Valcartier's operations, including advertising and room booking activities. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against EPR for want of personal jurisdiction but modify the designation to be without prejudice.”

United States v. Sepetu
24-1650, 24-1821 · 2026-05-15
Appeal (defendants-appellants) Denied

“For the above reasons, we affirm both Defendants' convictions and Sepetu's sentence.”

United States v. Deschambault
24-1275 · 2026-05-18
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“Having concluded that Deschambault's arguments are unpersuasive, we affirm.”

Flaherty v. Amigos Del Mar Ltd.
25-1735 · 2026-07-08
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“For these reasons, we affirm.”

Bruno Project Rescue, Inc. v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
25-1801 · 2026-07-13
Appeal (plaintiffs-appellants) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the district court's judgment is affirmed.”

Farid v. Trustees of Dartmouth College
25-1734 · 2026-07-13
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Denied

“For the above reasons, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on Farid's discrimination and retaliation claims under both federal and state law.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Not applicable to this circuit-court role.

Draft for Judge Dunlap with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dunlap, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Dunlap's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace