Donald William Molloy
How Judge Molloy rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Molloy
Donald W. Molloy is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Montana. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Molloy received a commission on August 1, 1996. Judge Molloy assumed senior status on August 16, 2011.
Judge Molloy's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Molloy'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 Molloy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the TikTok-ban ruling, the court treated an admission by the state that a law targets a company because of its foreign ownership as effectively dispositive of facial discrimination under the dormant Commerce Clause: an argument grounded in the state's own briefing carried real weight.
“The State plainly admits that it ‘ban[ned] TikTok because of the harms inseparable from TikTok's data-harvesting practices and ownership by a hostile foreign government.’ ... Facial discrimination, TikTok argues, per se invalidates a law. ... The Court agrees.”
In United States v. McGough, Molloy rejected a Section 2255 ineffective-assistance argument about a sentencing role adjustment. Defense counsel had argued that McGough was an average participant, and the government had agreed; Molloy found no deficient performance or likely different outcome from another strategy.
“Even the U.S. agreed with McGough's position on this issue in the plea agreement and at the change of plea. ... McGough has not identified any way in which his counsel's argument on this point was insufficient, unreasonable, or inaccurate; he is simply unhappy that the Court did not accept it.”
In Webster v. Sgt. Moden, Molloy granted jail personnel summary judgment on an excessive-force claim after comparing detention video with contemporaneous officer reports and finding no material factual dispute.
“The video evidence is consistent with the contemporaneous reports of the officers filed at the time of the incident.”
Procedural preferences
In Kaparich v. Ethicon, Inc., Molloy denied dismissal of a design-defect claim because Montana law did not require pleading a feasible alternative design. He dismissed the warranty claims because the plaintiff had not given the seller the notice of breach required by Montana law.
“Because Montana law does not require Kaparich to allege a feasible alternative, Ethicon's motion to dismiss is denied on that ground. ... Because Kaparich has not complied with § 30-2-607(3)(a), her breach of warranty claims are dismissed.”
In a religious-diet case, the court enforced the local requirement for a statement of disputed facts at summary judgment and required evidence supporting the claimed burden on religious exercise.
“Paige failed to file the required Statement of Disputed Facts, despite being advised of the requirement in a Rand notice filed by Defendant. (Doc. 45.)”
Cautions
In United States v. Grovo, Molloy denied compassionate release in part because he found Grovo's medical issues were largely self-inflicted and his prison conduct showed that he could not be trusted to comply with release conditions.
“Grovo's medical issues are largely due to his own efforts to harm himself to obtain acquittal or release. ... Grovo's conduct in prison ... demonstrates that he continues to disregard rules and norms to serve his own impulses. If released, he could not be trusted to comply with his conditions.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that Freedom Arms' motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) and Kell's motion for jurisdictional discovery (Doc. 12) are DENIED as MOOT.”
“Federal Defendants' (Doc. 27) and Defendant-Intervenor's (Doc. 31) cross-motions for summary judgment are GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' Claim I and DENIED in all other respects.”
“OPINION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. It is GRANTED on Claims II and III and DENIED as to Claim I.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Ethicon's partial motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED in PART. The manufacturing defect (Count III), negligent misrepresentation (Count V), breach of warranty (Counts VI, VII), consumer protection (Count VIII), and fraud (Count IX) claims are DISMISSED. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 66) is GRANTED. The revocation petition (Doc. 51) is DISMISSED and the final revocation hearing set for July 30, 2024, is VACATED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the government's motion, (Doc. 41), is GRANTED and Count 2 of the Indictment ... is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Austin James Lonas.”
“ORDER denying 66 Motion for Compassionate Release as to William Vernon Williams.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 134) is GRANTED. Proceedings in this case shall be stayed pending resolution of Consolidated Plaintiff's petition for review in the D.C. Circuit.”
“IT IS ORDERED that TikTok's and User Plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction (Docs. 11, 17) are GRANTED. The January 1, 2024 effective date for SB 419 is enjoined until a final determination on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims is made.”
“McGough's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 73) is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.”
“Abbey's motions for summary judgment (Docs. 52, 85) are DENIED”
“Raugust's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 67) is GRANTED.”
“ORDER denying 141 Motion to Vacate (2255) as to Allan Roy Goodman (1). COA denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 74 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 20 days (N = 4).
- The sampled dockets span federal criminal prosecutions, prisoner civil-rights and habeas suits (a large share of the recent civil docket, consistent with a senior judge handling pro se filings), products-liability and insurance/contract removals, Social Security disability appeals, and administrative-law challenges to federal land-management decisions.
- Several prisoner cases were dismissed sua sponte at screening, before any defendant appeared, and one habeas case shows an inherited magistrate-referral flag that was administratively corrected back to the judge's own docket the same week.
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 | 7 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Molloy: 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 Molloy with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Molloy, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Molloy's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace