Richard Brooke Jackson
How Judge Jackson rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Jackson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an administrative-law challenge to a mandatory food-assistance pilot project, Jackson focused on the lack of statutory authority to compel state participation, the agency's failure to follow required procedures, and the mismatch between the stated justifications and the record.
“Resting the pilot project on such a vague and conclusory basis cannot ‘be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.’”
In a series of 2026 immigration-habeas cases involving noncitizens who entered without inspection and were not in expedited removal, Jackson applied the bond-hearing statute rather than the mandatory-detention provision and ordered release.
“The Court has concluded, now many times over, that § 1226—and not § 1225(b)(2)(A)—governs detention for noncitizens who, like petitioner, entered the country without inspection and are not subject to expedited removal.”
Procedural preferences
When briefing was expedited, Jackson warned counsel that exhaustive length is not a substitute for focused persuasion and that a shotgun presentation can make a filing less effective.
“The task is to persuade the court to do something. A shotgun motion that raises all possible arguments is not necessarily persuasive.”
Cautions
On this detention question, Jackson acknowledged contrary appellate authority from other circuits but continued applying his prior statutory analysis while the Tenth Circuit had not ruled.
“The Court is aware of and has read the split decisions from the Fifth and Eighth Circuits adopting respondents’ interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, but remains unpersuaded.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28) is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 30, is GRANTED. ... The Court enters summary judgment dismissing all of plaintiff's claims.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 31, is DENIED.”
“Farmers' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 23, is DENIED.”
“Lardyn and Ms. York's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 35, is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 59) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 41) is denied as moot.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment, ECF No. 50, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is granted as to plaintiff’s claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities and as to plaintiff’s claims against the Sheriff’s Office. Those claims are dismissed with prejudice. It is denied as to plaintiff’s claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities and as to defendants’ alternative motion for summary judgment.”
“The motion to dismiss of defendants Roberts and Humphrey, ECF No. 41, is granted. The claims against them are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendants’ motion, ECF No. 40, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. The Court dismisses plaintiffs’ Section 1983 excessive force claim against defendant Powers. 2. The Court dismisses the false arrest state law claim against the Board with prejudice. 3. The Court dismisses the state law claims against the individual defendants without prejudice.”
“Colorado Springs’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 68) is GRANTED.”
“Teller County’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69) is GRANTED.”
“The individual CSPD defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 70) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“The added defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 65) is GRANTED.”
“The town defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 64) is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons above defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 57, is DENIED.”
“The pending motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 111, 112, and 113, are DENIED.”
“The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Thomas and Clark (ECF No. 37) is DENIED.”
“The motion to dismiss filed by defendant City of Arvada (ECF No. 39), and joined by defendant Valdez (ECF No. 41), is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Small, non-representative sample. A representative civil-duration distribution would require a broader terminated-civil sample.
Draft for Judge Jackson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jackson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jackson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace