Micah W. J. Smith
How Judge Smith rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Smith
Micah William Janso Smith is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Smith received a commission on January 31, 2024.
Judge Smith's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Smith, 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
Lead counsel must conduct prefiling conferences in real time; letters and email do not suffice.
“All Local Rule 7.8 conferences shall be conducted by lead counsel and shall take place via a communication method that, at a minimum, allows all parties to be in real-time communication.”
Motions
In a civil case, a plaintiff may amend the initial complaint within 14 days after a dismissal motion instead of responding to that motion.
“the plaintiff may amend the complaint within 14 days of the motion to dismiss to address the issues raised in the motion rather than answering the motion.”
Motions
Raise Daubert issues in a separate motion, not in a motion in limine.
“Daubert issues may not be presented in motions in limine.”
Conferences
File a request for remote appearance at least one week before the hearing.
“Counsel and pro se parties who wish to appear for hearings via telephone or video teleconference should file a letter request electronically on ECF at least one week prior to the hearing.”
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 Smith decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Vaokehekehe v. City and County of Honolulu, Smith dismissed the plaintiffs' federal municipal-liability claim while allowing a state-law respondeat superior theory to proceed. He rejected an inference of an inadequate police training policy from the single incident alleged.
“an inadequate training policy itself cannot be inferred from a single incident.”
In DelaRosa v. Liberty Mutual, Smith cited an earlier district decision on similar insurance-coverage facts as persuasive, though nonbinding, support for his interpretation of the policy.
“These conclusions draw support from an earlier decision in this District, Talana v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp., 2023 WL 2632219, which is not binding, but which is persuasive authority nonetheless.”
In Buckman v. Buckman, Smith denied Mark Buckman's motion to dismiss after finding that the complaint alleged the fraud claims with enough detail to satisfy Rule 9(b). He explained that the rule requires notice of the nature of the claim, not omniscience.
“Rule 9(b) does not require omniscience; rather the Rule requires that the circumstances of the fraud be pled with enough specificity to put defendants on notice as to the nature of the claim.”
Once post-removal-period detention became presumptively unreasonable, an assurance that officials were still seeking a third country did not rebut the detainee's showing without evidence of a significant likelihood of reasonably foreseeable removal.
“The government therefore bears the burden of rebutting the presumption that Malik’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged. To do so, its evidence must show a ‘significant likelihood of removal’ to a third country ‘in the reasonably foreseeable future.’”
In a post-removal detention case, the court rejected a raw count of successful repatriations because the government gave no total number of requests from which to assess the likelihood of obtaining travel papers for this detainee.
“The fundamental flaw is that they do not offer any indication of what percentage of the government’s requests are successful, or what percentage of the total number of attempted removals the 587 successful ones represent.”
On a Social Security appeal, the judge required the administrative law judge to explain why each favorable medical opinion was rejected and found the unexplained omissions material to the result.
“the ALJ did not provide adequate explanations for rejecting the medical opinions. Farias further argues that the errors were not harmless. The court agrees on both fronts”
Procedural preferences
In Jeffrey-Steven v. State of Hawai'i, he deferred deciding whether to permit another amendment after dismissing for lack of jurisdiction and invited the self-represented plaintiff to explain how amendment would cure the defect.
“The Court defers decision, at this time, on the question of whether Jeffrey-Steven should be granted further leave to amend.”
In Galarza v. Quam Properties, he extended a Rule 4(m) service deadline and deemed three defendants served after finding the delay brief and without concrete prejudice.
“the Court exercises its discretion to extend the service deadline under Rule 4(m) and deems Defendants Cribben, Quam Properties, and the HOA timely served.”
In Jeffrey-Steven v. State of Hawai'i, he decided a motion without a hearing under Local Rule 7.1(c).
“The Court elects to decide the motion without a hearing, as authorized by Local Rule 7.1(c).”
Cautions
In Thorson v. Hawai'i Public Housing Authority, he granted summary judgment for the defendants after finding that unauthenticated, unsworn emails and letters did not establish the plaintiff's claim against their sworn evidence.
“these emails and letters -- all of which are unauthenticated and unsworn -- are the only pieces of evidence in the record that support Thorson's claim.”
In Newman v. State of Hawai‘i, Smith denied further leave to amend and dismissed with prejudice after three complaints failed screening and the plaintiff’s proposed changes still did not identify facts supporting a viable claim.
“Newman's motion for leave to amend is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
In Imamoto, Smith applied Younger abstention to a challenge related to a pending state traffic-court proceeding, dismissed the complaint, and denied leave to amend as futile.
“The court therefore concludes that the Younger abstention principle applies, and precludes the court from adjudicating Imamoto’s claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED.”
“Because there is no merit to any of his contentions that the Court erred, Jeffrey-Steven's motion for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal Order is DENIED.”
“Because Jeffrey-Steven has not offered any means for curing the jurisdictional deficiencies identified in the Court's dismissal Order, leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, his request for leave to amend his complaint is DENIED.”
“No reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would question the undersigned judge's impartiality for these reasons. ... Jeffrey-Steven's recusal motion is therefore DENIED.”
“Defendant City and County of Honolulu's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. At Plaintiffs' request, they are granted leave to amend.”
“the court GRANTS Imamoto's in forma pauperis application, but DISMISSES the complaint.”
“The court also DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 7”
“DENIES Defendant HPD's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, as moot.”
“Newman's motion for leave to amend is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“the Court DENIES Defendant Mark F. Buckman's motion to dismiss”
“GRANTS Defendant Jennifer Buckman's motion to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend.”
“GRANTS the V2 Defendants' motion to dismiss the Lanham Act and trademark (or other trademark-related) claims under Rule 12(b)(6). ... this dismissal is with prejudice. ... GRANTS the motion to dismiss any such claims (solely as to Walsh) under Rule 12(b)(1) without prejudice.”
“the V2 Defendants' motion for judicial notice, which they filed in support of their motion to dismiss, is DENIED as moot.”
“GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, insofar as it dismisses Plaintiff Steven Galarza and Defendants Rod Quam, Lysa Tracy, and Michael Deatrick without prejudice”
“DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve process.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 101, is GRANTED.”
“Thorson's motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 86, is DENIED.”
“her motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 78, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16, is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled matters reflect a broad new-judge docket that includes prisoner and habeas cases, Social Security appeals, employment and consumer disputes, insurance and contract suits, foreclosure, admiralty, and securities enforcement.
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 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
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 U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, not for Judge Smith: 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 Smith with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Smith, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Smith's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace