Thomas Penfield Jackson

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

Judge Jackson no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.

Court
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Position
District judge
Status
Deceased
Served
1982–2004
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
June 25, 1982
Education
Dartmouth College, A.B., 1958; Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1964
Signed orders read
17

About Judge Jackson

Thomas Penfield Jackson was a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Jackson received a commission on June 25, 1982. Judge Jackson assumed senior status on January 31, 2002 and retired on August 31, 2004.

How Judge Jackson decides

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

What persuades

He credited the absence of a witnessed traffic violation and rejected testimony that the defendant had volunteered consent to search.

“The conclusion the Court draws is that Bullock committed no traffic violation witnessed by the Fifth District vice officers on December 20, 2001, and that the traffic stop — a pretext for an investigatory stop under”

He enforced a broad settlement release where a beneficiary had declined participation but accepted her share of the proceeds without objection.

“She declined, but then willingly accepted her share of the proceeds of the settlement negotiated by Shaw without objection.”

Cautions

He required securities-fraud plaintiffs to satisfy heightened pleading rules for scienter rather than rely on generalized corporate allegations.

“Moreover, in assessing the viability of the instant claim against Sky-Tel, the Court must take into account the pleading requirements imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C.'§§ 78u-4, 78u-5 (‘PSLRA’), for still greater particularity in stating a private Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 class action claim.”

He applied equitable discretion to avoid adjudicating an intra-legislative dispute even without reaching the other asserted defenses.

“The motion will be granted on the sole ground of the doctrine of equitable or remedial discretion.”

Signed rulings

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

Adams v. Alderson
· 1989-06-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED, that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted; and it is”

Harrison v. Howard University
· 1993-10-08
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED, that defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, is granted; and it is”

Investment Company Institute v. Ludwig
· 1995-01-23
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED, that the motion of plaintiff Investment Company Institute for summary judgment is denied; and it is”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“FURTHER ORDERED, that the motion of defendant Comptroller of the Currency for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”

Skaggs v. Carle
· 1995-08-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED, that the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).”

Leavell v. Shaw
· 1996-10-31
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“ORDERED, that defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted; and it is”

Motion for leave to amend complaint (plaintiff) Denied

“FURTHER ORDERED, that plaintiffs motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is denied; and it is”

Electromedical Products International, Inc. v. Kessler
· 1997-01-10
Preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Denied

“ORDERED, that plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is denied, and defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted; and it is”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Reich
· 1997-01-31
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“ORDERED, that defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is denied; and it is”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“FURTHER ORDERED, that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part; and it is”

Lindblom v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies Corp.
· 1997-12-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant SkyTel Corporation) Granted

“ORDERED, that the motion of the defendant SkyTel Corporation to dismiss the complaint is granted, and the complaint is dis *165 missed with prejudice as to the defendant SkyTel Corporation.”

Hill v. Runyon
· 1998-07-23
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“ORDERED, that defendant’s motion to dismiss in part, or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment, is granted in part ' and denied in part; and it is”

Veitch v. Danzig
· 2001-02-27
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED, that plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is denied; and it is”

Jackson v. Microsoft Corp.
· 2001-03-12
Motion for recusal (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED, that the motion of defendant Microsoft Corporation for my recusal is granted; and it is”

Advantage Health Plan, Inc. v. Knight
· 2001-04-19
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“ORDERED, that defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is granted; and it is”

Motion for stay (defendants) Moot / procedural

“FURTHER ORDERED, that defendants’ motion for a stay [7] is denied as moot.”

Pending matters in the official report

Judge Jackson was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2022.

Motions pending more than six months0
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years0
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Sep 202200
Mar 202200
Sep 202100
Mar 202100
Sep 202000

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.

A historical record

Judge Jackson no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.