Richard Brooke Jackson
How Judge Jackson rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jackson
Richard Brooke Jackson is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Jackson received a commission on September 1, 2011. Judge Jackson assumed senior status on September 30, 2021.
Judge Jackson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Jackson, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
Before moving to dismiss a civil case other than a pro se inmate case, hold a substantive conference with opposing counsel.
“Before filing a motion to dismiss, the parties should meet and confer in a good faith, substantive, and meaningful way.”
Motions
After that conference, send a letter of at most three pages explaining the anticipated dismissal motion.
“After the meet and confer process has been completed, the moving party will file and serve a short letter (not to exceed three pages including signature block) setting forth the basis for the anticipated motion”
Motions
Most motions and responses are limited to fifteen pages with five-page replies; summary judgment papers have twenty-page motions and responses with ten-page replies.
“Except for summary judgment motions, the motion and response should not exceed 15 pages (replies 5 pages). Summary judgment motions and responses should not exceed 20 pages (replies 10 pages).”
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).
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.
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 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 6 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 2 |
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 Colorado, not for Judge Jackson: 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 | 2,669 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 497 | 7.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,076 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 63 | 26.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 33 | 39.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,669 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,704 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,560 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,614 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,637 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,637 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,577 | 7.5 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 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