Howard Frederic Sachs
How Judge Sachs rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Sachs no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Sachs
Howard Frederic Sachs is an inactive senior judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Appointed by President Jimmy Carter, Judge Sachs received a commission on September 26, 1979. Judge Sachs assumed senior status on October 31, 1992.
How Judge Sachs decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Long family’s federal challenge to Missouri court rulings, Judge Sachs declined to apply the Seventh Circuit’s Nesses exception and held that Rooker-Feldman barred what he viewed as an attempt to obtain district-court reconsideration of those rulings.
“The Nesses exception to Rooker-Feldman has been unmentioned by judges in other Circuits, and I believe the Eighth Circuit would apply Rooker-Feldman rather than Nesses here.”
In Suter v. State of Missouri, the court found the inmates' testimony about cell conditions credible and more useful than testimony from administrators removed from those conditions. It nevertheless denied a preliminary injunction because the feared transfer was not imminent.
“The administrative personnel, while apparently experienced, well-motivated and competent, were so removed from in-cell conditions that their testimony was not very helpful.”
Procedural preferences
In Executive Risk Indemnity v. Asurion, Sachs stayed an insurer’s indemnity suit while the underlying class settlement awaited approval. He found the unsettled agreement left the indemnity issues too fluid for a present ruling.
“the current situation is sufficiently fluid as to preclude judicial opining on issues that may never require an answer.”
In Suter, Judge Sachs denied a preliminary injunction against construction of a new women’s prison because transfer to the proposed four-person cells was not imminent. He cautioned the state that continuing the design without addressing the equal-treatment claim was at its own risk.
“Defendants know, however, that they proceed at their own risk, and have been dramatically alerted to the claim for equal treatment.”
Cautions
In Blue Moon Entertainment v. City of Bates City, Sachs rejected the city’s argument that its concession about a licensing ordinance made the constitutional challenge immaterial; the city could reenact the disputed provision.
“Thus, plaintiff’s claim that Section 406 is unconstitutional is not immaterial.”
In Kennedy v. Kemna, Sachs denied a § 2254 ineffective assistance petition after finding no ultimate prejudice, even while declining to reject criticism of defense counsel’s performance.
“without rejecting criticism of defense counsel’s performance, I conclude that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must be denied.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated, and for additional reasons briefed by defendants, the summary judgment motion (Doc. 112) shall be GRANTED and judgment entered in favor of defendants Funeral Directors Service, Inc., Franke & Schultz, P.C. and Cari Franke Walsh. SO ORDERED.”
“I conclude that relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must be denied.3 The motion for relief (Doc. 1) is therefore DENIED.”
“ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF doc. 42) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with this opinion.”
“As a matter of discretion, therefore, I DENY the motion to dismiss, without prejudice to further consideration, and STAY these proceedings until counsel can report final action of the Florida trial court on the settlement agreement.”
“For the foregoing reasons a preliminary injunction is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF doc. 16) is GRANTED.”
“The motions to dismiss (Docs. 3 and 9) are therefore GRANTED.”
“Defendant's motions for summary judgment and for reconsideration are GRANTED and the case is dismissed as moot. Judgment shall be entered in favor of defendant because of plaintiff's lack of standing. SO ORDERED.”
“the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 84) is GRANTED in favor of defendants on the claims of all plaintiffs other than David Hembree.”
“ORDERED that: (1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; (2) the issuance of a certificate of appealability is denied; and (3) this case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF doc. 81) is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to dismiss this action without prejudice (ECF doc. 27) is GRANTED each party to bear its own costs.”
“ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF doc. 7) is DENIED as moot.”
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 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.
A historical record
Judge Sachs 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.