John Michael Seabright
How Judge Seabright rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Seabright
John Michael Seabright is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Seabright received a commission on April 28, 2005. Judge Seabright assumed senior status on January 30, 2024.
Judge Seabright's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Seabright, 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
Other
Request permission before using an electronic device for case-related work in Judge Seabright’s courtroom.
“Judge Seabright, upon request, may in his discretion permit an attorney of record (or staff member, such as a paralegal working on behalf of an attorney of record) to use an electronic device”
Other
Do not connect an electronic device to the internet in Judge Seabright’s courtroom without permission.
“no electronic device may be connected to the internet while in Judge Seabright's courtroom absent permission of the court.”
Other
Anyone other than an attorney of record must turn off electronic devices before entering the courtroom.
“All individuals other than an attorney of record must turn off completely any electronic devices prior to entering Judge Seabright’s courtroom.”
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 Seabright decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Section 1983 claim against a nonprofit that received government Medicaid funding, he held government funding and regulatory oversight alone do not convert a private entity's employment decisions into state action, and that the challenged conduct must itself relate to the government function, not merely occur within a regulated relationship.
“the specific conduct of which the plaintiff complains ... is employment discrimination, not any implementation of Medicaid funding or its goals ... Full Life's employment decisions (even if discriminatory) are not those of the government.”
In United States v. Tong, Seabright dismissed a second Section 2255 motion because the factual basis for its claims already existed when the defendant filed her first motion.
“the factual predicate for each of these claims existed when the First Section 2255 Motion was filed ... making the Second Section 2255 Motion second or successive.”
In United States v. Edwards, he denied a second compassionate-release motion after finding that the defendant's medical conditions did not establish extraordinary circumstances and that nearly two years remained on a sentence already reduced for health reasons.
“an inmate's refusal of a COVID-19 vaccination undercuts that inmate's assertion of extraordinary and compelling circumstances justifying compassionate release.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Poai, Seabright denied leave to file late motions to dismiss and sever because defense counsel offered no explanation for missing the extended pretrial deadline beyond saying the issues should have been caught earlier.
“Defendant proffers no ‘legitimate explanation’ for the failure to file both motions in a timely manner. ... The absence of any explanation is fatal to a finding of good cause.”
In Bolos v. Waldorf-Astoria Management, he compelled individual arbitration for workers bound by arbitration agreements and severed their claims into separate actions under Rule 21.
“Rule 21 severance creates two discrete, independent actions, which then proceed as separate suits for the purpose of finality and appealability.”
Cautions
In Thunderfoot, Seabright dismissed the federal claims without further leave to amend after the plaintiff's supplemental filing gave no basis to cure the pleading defects identified in an earlier order.
“In her Affidavit, Plaintiff fails to identify any basis to amend her federal claims to cure the defects identified in the court’s August 22 Order.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Bane's Motion for Reconsideration, and exercises its discretion to maintain jurisdiction over Bane's IIED claim.”
“In turning to the merits of Bane's IIED claim, the court GRANTS Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment on this claim.”
“Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendant NCL America LLC's Motion for Reconsideration of the December 14, 2012 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant NCL America LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Based on the foregoing, the court finds that Plaintiff failed to comply with LR 56.1 and failed to establish that she is entitled to judgment on her civil RICO claim. Therefore, her Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 43.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS a preliminary injunction, and the Motion is GRANTED with relief limited as described above.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 74.1, the PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING PLAINTIFF PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT THE ESTATE OF JOSHUA K. APO are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court.”
“In sum, the court finds that Defendant has not established the requisite extraordinary and compelling reasons to warrant compassionate release, and, even if he did, the court would deny the motion based on the relevant § 3553(a) factors. ... For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Compassionate Release or a Recommendation for Home Confinement, ECF No. 286, is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, ECF No. 24, is GRANTED and the case is remanded back to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case file.”
“All four elements of Winter are satisfied. GLSS is a partnership. Tanjuakio must treat it as such. He must comply with fiduciary duties. Accordingly, the court enters a temporary restraining order as follows, the language of which is based on a post-TRO hearing agreement between Plaintiffs and Tanjuakio.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Second Compassionate Release Motion, ECF No. 113, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Having found Defendant's Second § 2255 Motion to be second or successive, the Motion is DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court is directed to refer the matter to the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Rule 22-3(a).”
“DENIES Defendant's Motion for Bail, ECF No. 172.”
“Because this court has no authority to provide the relief Petitioner seeks, and because any amendment would be futile, the Motion for Writ of Mandamus, ECF No. 1, is DENIED without leave to amend.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The new filing cohort includes contract, insurance, employment, Social Security, personal-injury, and prisoner matters. Nine new dated motion outcomes came from three of its thirteen terminated cases; the two recent cases remain pending. This fixed cohort is too narrow to represent the courtwide case mix or motion rate.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, not for Judge Seabright: 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 | 570 | 4.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 152 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 398 | 5.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 12 | 28.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 570 | 4.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 624 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 502 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 472 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 496 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 523 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 511 | 9.1 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 Seabright with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Seabright, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Seabright's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace