Scott T. Varholak
How Judge Varholak rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Varholak
Scott T. Varholak serves as Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Colorado. His chambers are in Denver at the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse.
Judge Varholak's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Varholak, 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.
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 Varholak decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Sticky.io’s computer-access suit, he recommended dismissal without prejudice because the complaint omitted the CFAA’s $5,000 loss threshold but might be amended.
“the CFAA claim failed because Plaintiff failed to plead a loss of at least $5,000 stemming from the alleged unauthorized access ... because it is possible that Plaintiff could plausibly plead such claims, the magistrate judge recommended that each of them be dismissed without prejudice.”
In Inestroza Paguada’s detention case, he rejected a reading that would collapse the statutory distinction between Sections 1225 and 1226.
“To hold otherwise would collapse the statutory distinction between Sections 1225 and 1226 and render Section 1226 largely superfluous as applied to noncitizens who entered this country without inspection.”
When detention was initially imposed under the wrong statutory provision, he required the government to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence at a prompt bond hearing.
“the Court therefore finds that the Government shall bear the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence at Petitioner’s bond hearing.”
Procedural preferences
In Salim’s RFRA case, he found the less-restrictive-means issue fact dependent and unsuitable for resolution on the motion to dismiss.
“he determined that the second element of this affirmative defense -- whether there are less restrictive means of furthering those interests -- is fact dependent and thus inappropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court ACCEPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 45), GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12), and directs the Clerk to CLOSE this case.”
“the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Varholak's Recommendation to grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion, ECF No. 94. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, ECF No. 38, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak [Doc. 77] is ADOPTED; (2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 29] is GRANTED; (3) The Amended Complaint [Doc. 7] is DISMISSED without prejudice”
“the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [#1] is GRANTED to the extent it seeks a bond hearing”
“ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 53] is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 54] is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that the defendant Roundpoint’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint [Docket No. 8] is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that defendant loanDepot’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 18] is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that defendant Sayer Law’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 29] is GRANTED.”
“that the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [#1] is GRANTED;”
“that the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [#1] is GRANTED to the extent it seeks a bond hearing;”
“that the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [#1] is GRANTED to the extent it seeks a bond hearing;”
“Mr. Ramirez Salvador seeks a writ ordering Respondents to provide Mr. Ramirez Salvador with a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. ... that the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [#1] is GRANTED to the extent it seeks a bond hearing;”
“that the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [#1] is GRANTED IN PART;”
“For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED: (1) that the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [#1] is GRANTED to the extent it seeks a bond hearing;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The selected cases do not form a representative duration cohort, so no case-duration distribution is reported. Referral matters and consent cases are kept distinct when interpreting the outcomes.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Colorado, not for Judge Varholak: 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 Varholak with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Varholak, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Varholak's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace