Robert James Jonker

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 28 signed orders read

How Judge Jonker decides

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

Procedural preferences

On objected-to Reports and Recommendations, he performs genuine de novo review of the record and the specific objections raised, engaging with case law the objecting party cites rather than adopting wholesale -- in Martin he distinguished the defendants' key authority on its facts before overruling their objection.

“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.”

Cautions

He enforces the PLRA's three-strikes rule against pro se prisoner plaintiffs with a documented history of frivolous filings, and will deny in forma pauperis status and require the full filing fee even where the case is not yet dismissed.

“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.

Faber v. Smith
1:19-cv-24 · 2019-11-01
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No 38) is DENIED.”

Martin v. Henderson
1:21-cv-330 · 2022-10-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.”

Parker v. Vasquez
1:16-cv-450 · 2018-09-26
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 77, 82) are GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Vasquez and Gainer are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Velthuysen v. Unknown Party #1
2:17-cv-179 · 2018-01-12

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.

Jones v. Unknown Juarez
1:24-cv-00256 · 2025-07-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED.”

Brown v. Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety
1:24-cv-01100 · 2025-06-25
Motions to dismiss (defendant) 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.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Lee v. Tinerella
1:16-cv-00458 · 2017-07-27
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed (ECF No. 77), which this Court construes as a motion to dismiss, is GRANTED.”

Patrick v. Butzbaugh
1:08-cv-01075 · 2009-02-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (docket #3) is granted under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).”

Jamison v. Wolfe
1:18-cv-00233 · 2019-09-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 40 and 41) are GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED.”

Howell v. Corning
1:13-cv-01276 · 2015-03-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Sango v. Unknown Eubanks
2:20-cv-00160 · 2021-06-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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).”

Teets v. Vanderwagon
1:24-cv-01249 · 2025-08-07
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.

Put Judge Jonker's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Jonker actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Jonker's own signed orders and cites them.