Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana district Retired 2025 · served 2007–2025 Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 2 signed orders read

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

How Judge Bokkelen decides

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

What persuades

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion he holds defendants to the pleading-stage record and refuses to consider extrinsic materials (here an agency hotline report) attached to the motion, giving a pro se plaintiff the benefit of reasonable inferences under the Swanson/Twombly notice standard.

“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

He denies summary judgment brought before discovery and enforces the local-rule notice a movant owes a pro se opponent -- a premature, improperly-noticed motion is denied without prejudice rather than reached on the merits.

“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 Section 1983 cases he reserves probable cause and qualified immunity for the jury where the material facts are genuinely disputed, and will not credit a defense expert whose opinions rest on resolving witness credibility against the non-movant.

“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”

Signed rulings

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

Dahm v. Clinton
· 2013-02-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Moot / procedural

“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).”

Shepherd v. Town of Merrillville
· 2015-03-06
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' 86 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“Court DENIES 91 First Motion to Strike.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' 94 Motion to Strike is DENIED.”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiff's 99 Second Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”

A historical record

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