Robert James Jonker
How Judge Jonker rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jonker
Robert James Jonker is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Jonker received a commission on July 16, 2007.
Judge Jonker's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Jonker's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Jonker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Martin v. Henderson, Jonker overruled the defendants’ objection to a recommendation denying summary judgment after distinguishing their cited precedent and reviewing the exhaustion issue.
“Contrary to Defendants' assertions, Parker is distinguishable from this case for the reasons the Magistrate asserts... The Court does not agree that Parker can be read to require the Plaintiff do more than comply with that requirement.”
In an October 2026 immigration detention case, Jonker required administrative exhaustion after a controlling appellate decision and the government’s commitment to apply it made agency review a viable route. He dismissed the petition without prejudice and allowed a new petition if that route proved unavailable.
“administrative review of the controlling legal question is likely to result in an agency decision that honors the law. This, in turn, means that exhaustion is no longer futile.”
Cautions
In Velthuysen v. Unknown Party #1, Jonker denied the prisoner leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee under the three-strikes rule after identifying more than three prior dismissals for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim.
“Plaintiff has been an active litigant in the federal courts in Michigan. In more than three of Plaintiff's lawsuits, the Court entered dismissals on the grounds that the cases were frivolous, malicious, and/or failed to state a claim.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No 38) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 77, 82) are GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Vasquez and Gainer are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
A pro se prisoner civil-rights case purporting to be a class action. The judge denied class-certification status because a pro se litigant cannot represent a class, and separately denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis under the PLRA's three-strikes rule given the plaintiff's litigation history. This was a screening-stage disposition rather than a contested party motion.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed (ECF No. 77), which this Court construes as a motion to dismiss, is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (docket #3) is granted under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 40 and 41) are GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED.”
“Defendant Corning’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket # 14) is GRANTED to the extent Defendant Corning seeks summary judgment on the federal claims and is DISMISSED AS MOOT in all other respects.”
“Defendants Czop, Burke, and Corizon’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket # 21) is GRANTED to the extent Defendants Czop, Burke, and Corizon seek summary judgment on the federal claims and is DISMISSED AS MOOT in all other respects.”
“Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment in the following docket entries are GRANTED: ECF No. 16 in Sango v. Eubanks, 2:20-cv-160 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2021); ECF No. 12 in Sango v. Eubanks, 2:20-cv-181 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2021); ECF No. 13 in Sango v. Fleury, 2:20-cv-186 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2021); ECF No. 12 in Sango v. Fleury, 2:20-cv-187 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 5, 2021); and ECF No. 13 in Sango v. Hubble, 2:20-cv-193 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 5, 2021).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
His January 2018 assigned dockets show a broad general civil docket typical of a long-serving district judge: consumer-credit (FDCPA) suits, ERISA benefits claims, Fair Labor Standards Act wage suits, Social Security appeals, and a substantial share of prisoner civil-rights and habeas cases referred to a magistrate judge.
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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 6 | 10 |
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 United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not for Judge Jonker: 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 | 1,042 | 7.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 107 | 2.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 714 | 6.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 217 | 14.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,042 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 906 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 847 | 6.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,033 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,081 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 844 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 893 | 7.8 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 Jonker with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jonker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jonker's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace