Dana Lewis Christensen
How Judge Christensen rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Christensen
Dana Lewis Christensen is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Montana. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Christensen received a commission on December 6, 2011. Judge Christensen assumed senior status on November 7, 2025.
Judge Christensen's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Christensen'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).
- Standing Order BMM-17: Unsealing of Court Records ↗
- Standing Order BMM-06: Prison Electronic Filing Project ↗
- Standing Order BMM-13: Appointment of Counsel and Access to Confidential Documents in Certain Criminal Cases ↗
- Standing Order DLC-51: General Consent to Magistrate Judge in Social Security Cases ↗
- Standing Order BMM-27: Retroactive Application of Amendment 821 ↗
How Judge Christensen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the youth climate-change suit against the Trump administration, the court found the plaintiffs' scientific evidence of harm genuinely compelling, but treated the sheer breadth of the injunction sought, reaching into hundreds of discrete agency actions across many federal programs, as itself defeating the court's power to grant it, following the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Juliana v. United States.
“Plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace... Yet while this Court is certainly troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the Challenged EOs' effect on carbon dioxide emissions, this concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act. ... [N]ot every problem posing a threat -- even a clear and present danger -- to the American Experiment can be solved by federal judges.”
In Crow Indian Tribe v. United States, Christensen vacated the rule removing Greater Yellowstone grizzlies from Endangered Species Act protection. He found that the agency's cited studies did not support the population threshold it used and that its analysis of genetic threats was arbitrary and capricious.
“The studies cited by the Service do not squarely support the assertions for which they are cited. ... [I]t does not support the Service's reading that 100 individuals constitute 'the minimum effective population size suggested in the literature.' ... The Service's determination is arbitrary and capricious because it is both illogical and inconsistent with the cautious approach demanded by the ESA.”
In United Financial Casualty Co. v. Graham, he held that separate allegations against two insured drivers did not multiply the policy limit for one collision, and granted the insurer summary judgment.
“Even if Michael and Victoria Howell independently caused the accident, these independent bases of liability do not change the fact that only one accident occurred.”
Procedural preferences
In Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics v. United States Forest Service, he declared the agency's unpermitted fire retardant discharges unlawful but denied a permanent injunction while it pursued a discharge permit, requiring six-month status reports.
“[A]s the court recognized in Romero-Barcelo, the objective of the CWA is likely to be achieved here in due course without need for a permanent injunction in the interim. ... [T]he USFS shall provide this Court with a status report every six-months regarding its progress toward obtaining an NPDES permit until a final decision has been reached.”
In BNSF Railway Co. v. Center for Asbestos Related Disease, Christensen allowed the United States to intervene after it learned that a writ of execution threatened property tied to federal grant funds. He found the motion timely despite the government's earlier decision not to intervene in the underlying case.
“[W]hile the Government had years to intervene in BNSF I and chose not to, the Government's Motion to intervene in this case is timely. The Government learned of the Writ of Execution on May 7, 2025, and filed the instant Motion on May 21, 2025.”
Cautions
In Golie’s Section 2255 proceeding, he dismissed the motion for failure to prosecute after Golie did not respond to a show cause order despite an express warning that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
“Golie was further advised that his failure to obey the court's order would result in dismissal. ... Golie had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance. At this juncture, the Court can envision no further alternatives to dismissal.”
In United States v. Bell, he denied compassionate release after finding that the prisoner's conditions were receiving adequate treatment, a six-month pacemaker delay was not yet unreasonable, and his drug history posed a danger to the community.
“[O]nly six months have passed since the pacemaker was originally recommended. ... [T]he Court is not convinced that the delay here is unreasonable. ... The Court finds Bell's criminal history, which includes several convictions for possession and distribution of drugs, very concerning. The Court believes Bell still presents a risk of danger to the community.”
In United States v. Cockrill, Christensen denied compassionate release after finding that Cockrill's alleged abuse in custody had not been established by a qualifying adjudication and that his other circumstances and sentencing factors did not warrant release.
“Specifically, the abuse was not ‘established by a conviction in a criminal case, a finding or admission of liability in a civil case, or a finding in an administrative proceeding.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that the United States' motion (Doc. 70) is GRANTED. The forfeiture count is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to the defendants.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 38) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Indictment (Doc. 2) and Superseding Indictment (Doc. 24) are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 41) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Indictment (Doc. 2) and Superseding Indictment (Doc. 24) are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Golie's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 106) is DISMISSED based upon his failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).”
“Therefore, the Government's Motion to Quash (Doc. 1-3) is DENIED and CARD's Motion to Join the Motion to Quash (Doc. 9) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“CARD's Motion to Join the Motion to Quash (Doc. 9) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Therefore, the Government's Motion to Intervene (Doc. 11) is GRANTED.”
“Therefore, CARD Employees' Motion to Intervene (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.”
“CARD fails to establish the first element because, as outlined above, the United States's Motion to Quash will be DENIED. Therefore, CARD's Motion for Preliminary Injunction/TRO must also be DENIED.”
“Davis's motion to vacate (Doc. 97) is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Bell has not demonstrated an extraordinary and compelling reason to warrant a reduction of his custodial sentence. The § 3553(a) factors support denial of Bell's request. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Bell's motion to reduce sentence (Doc. 133) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion for compassionate release (Doc. 164) and supplemental motion (Doc. 168) are DENIED.”
“Linton's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 73) is DENIED.”
“Linton's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 72) is DENIED on the merits, as is his original motion for constitutional challenge (Doc. 67).”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) and motion to order response (Doc. 11) are DENIED as moot.”
“As discussed above, there is no reasonable factual basis for recusal in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request will be denied.”
“Lucas's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 54) is DENIED and DISMISSED for lack of merit.”
“Stewart's Rule 60(b) Motion (Doc. 40) is DENIED and DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as a disguised/unauthorized second or successive § 2254 petition.”
“Stewart's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 42) is DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 232 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 40 days (N = 5).
- The sampled dockets span federal criminal prosecutions, prisoner civil-rights and state/federal habeas corpus petitions, insurance and products-liability disputes, and administrative-law challenges to federal land-management and endangered-species decisions: consistent with a judge who has presided over both divisions of a small, generalist federal district for over a decade.
- Two long-running environmental cases in the sample were reassigned to the judge mid-litigation from a colleague, and he carried both through to final judgment (and, in one, a later post-judgment motion to alter that judgment).
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 | 11 |
| 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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 11 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 14 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 27 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 21 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 13 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 10 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 11 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 20 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 12 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 8 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 3 |
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 District of Montana, not for Judge Christensen: 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 | 430 | 9.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 186 | 6.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 137 | 8.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 103 | 14.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 430 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 385 | 10.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 363 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 408 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 442 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 384 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 388 | 10.6 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 Christensen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Christensen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Christensen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace