Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
How Judge Bokkelen rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Bokkelen no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen is a senior judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Appointed by President George W. Bush, he received his commission on July 18, 2007. He assumed senior status on September 29, 2017. A March 19, 2025 court order recorded his inactive status.
How Judge Bokkelen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Dahm v. Clinton, he declined to consider an agency hotline report attached to the defendants' dismissal memorandum when assessing the complaint.
“Defendants purport to know what Plaintiff's complaints to the OIG were on the basis of an OIG 'Hotline Communication Report' attached to its memorandum that cannot be considered on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”
Procedural preferences
In Dahm v. Clinton, he denied the defendants' summary judgment motion as premature because discovery had not occurred and the required notice to the pro se plaintiff was missing.
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied. It is premature. There has been no opportunity for discovery. Moreover, Defendants have failed to provide this pro se Plaintiff with the notice required by Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 56-1(f).”
In Shepherd v. Town of Merrillville, he declined to rely on a defense expert's probable-cause opinion because it assumed credibility findings against the plaintiff.
“Because the opinions expressed in the report depend on Ezell's resolution of credibility issues in favor of Defendants, they cannot ... assist the Court in determining whether, as a matter of law, there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff”
In one conspiracy case, the court found several individually insufficient grounds for separate trials added up to a substantial risk of unfair prejudice and granted severance.
“Taken in isolation, each of Defendant’s arguments for severance is insufficient. However, the Court finds that each argument for severance has merit and cumulatively could unnecessarily prejudice the Defendant at trial.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (DE 26) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ... The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to the United States Office of Personnel Management, which is dismissed as a party. The motion to dismiss is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's claims of age discrimination and reprisal for complaining about age discrimination.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice. It is premature. There has been no opportunity for discovery. Moreover, Defendants have failed to provide this pro se Plaintiff with the notice required by Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 56-1(f).”
“Defendants' 86 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Because the Court does not rely on these opinions in deciding Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the motion is denied as moot.”
“Defendants' 94 Motion to Strike is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's 99 Second Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“this Court adopts Judge Cosbey’s recommendations and GRANTS the motions.”
“Plaintiffs’ attorneys motion for attorney fees in the sum of $78,000, to be paid pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, is GRANTED (DE 70).”
“the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Severance (DE 104).”
“Defendant Alexis Young’s Motion for Severance (DE 147) is rendered moot.”
“the Court grants Alexis Young’s Motion to Continue (DE 143)”
“the Court. GRANTS Leathers’s motion for summary judgment (DE 42).”
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Bokkelen was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2024.
| 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2021 | 14 | 12 |
| Sep 2020 | 11 | 14 |
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 Bokkelen no longer sits on this court. 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.