Amy Berman Jackson
How Judge Jackson rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jackson
Amy Berman Jackson is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Jackson received a commission on March 18, 2011. Judge Jackson assumed senior status on May 1, 2023.
Judge Jackson's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Jackson's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 8, 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 Secular Student Alliance, she held that the Education Department’s Free Inquiry Rule fell within its general rulemaking authority and granted the agency partial summary judgment on the statutory-authority claims.
“defendants’ partial summary judgment motion is GRANTED”
In Staszak v. Department of Justice, she granted the agency summary judgment because the requester had not exhausted the administrative process for the records at issue.
“Because plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED.”
In Menzies Middle East and Africa SA v. Republic of Niger, she found the foreign state was subject to suit under the arbitration exception and granted default judgment confirming the award after reviewing jurisdiction and evidence.
“this matter falls under the FSIA’s ‘arbitral award’ exception”
Procedural preferences
In Lucas’s suit, she declined futile amendment because the proposed claims would not survive and further pleading would consume judicial resources.
“[W]hile a court is instructed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to grant leave to amend a complaint freely, it need not do so where the only result would be to waste time and judicial resources.”
In Berton’s removed case, she dismissed the District’s federal claims, declined supplemental jurisdiction, and remanded the remaining case to D.C. Superior Court.
“it will grant the District’s motion to dismiss for the reasons explained below and, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, will remand the case to D.C. Superior Court.”
Cautions
In Lucas’s case, she held that the signed settlement agreement barred the claims the plaintiff had expressly released.
“because plaintiff expressly released the claims she now seeks to bring in Counts One through Seven, the Settlement Agreement acts as a bar for relief in this Court.”
A fraud-in-the-inducement claim must stand independent of the contract; recasting a breach as fraud by alleging the defendant secretly never intended to perform ('fingers crossed') does not state a tort.
“a plaintiff cannot state a ‘fraud in the inducement claim [that] is indistinguishable from the breach of contract claim except that plaintiff has added a conclusory allegation that [defendant] had its fingers crossed when it executed the contract’”
In Davis v. Faith of Life Protection Services, she dismissed negligence claims against two companies because the complaint did not allege facts showing they had notice of a dangerous condition before the brief incident.
“plaintiff does not allege any facts to establish that Safeway or Protos were on notice of any dangerous conditions prior to the incident alleged in the second amended complaint.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the defendants United States Department of Justice and Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy (‘OIP’) have filed a motion for summary judgment that is ripe for decision. The Court will grant the motion for the reasons set forth below.”
“This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion.”
“This matter is before the Court on defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion.”
“For the reasons set forth in more detail below, plaintiff’s motion to amend will be granted in part and denied in part.”
“Because plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint [Dkt. # 34] will therefore be DENIED, and defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 17] will be GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated above, defendants’ partial summary judgment motion is GRANTED [Dkt. # 47], and plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment motion is DENIED [Dkt. # 12].”
“defendants’ partial summary judgment motion is GRANTED [Dkt. # 47], and plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment motion is DENIED [Dkt. # 12].”
“Pending before the Court on Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.”
“The Court agrees that plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim. So it will grant the District’s motion to dismiss for the reasons explained below and, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, will remand the case to D.C. Superior Court.”
“defendant’s motion to dismiss will be GRANTED.”
“the motion to remand the case to Superior Court is DENIED”
“the motion to dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice.”
“The Court will construe that request as a motion for leave to amend his complaint. That motion will be denied”
“the Court will GRANT plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment”
“the Court will GRANT plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and DENY defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The recent pending assignments reviewed include criminal, immigration, information-access, contract, and foreign-discovery matters. This is a qualitative description of selected assignments, not a counted distribution of the judge's full caseload.
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 | 45 |
| 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 | 54 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 45 | 54 |
| Sep 2025 | 39 | 55 |
| Mar 2025 | 37 | 56 |
| Sep 2024 | 44 | 44 |
| Mar 2024 | 39 | 37 |
| Sep 2023 | 26 | 38 |
| Mar 2023 | 27 | 40 |
| Sep 2022 | 24 | 39 |
| Mar 2022 | 16 | 24 |
| Sep 2021 | 8 | 18 |
| Mar 2021 | 15 | 14 |
| Sep 2020 | 6 | 12 |
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 Columbia, 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 | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 876 | 5.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,449 | 8.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 53.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,290 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,288 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,044 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,408 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,947 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,963 | 5.1 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