Donald William Molloy

United States District Court for the District of Montana Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 20 signed orders read

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.”

On Section 2255 ineffective-assistance claims, the court looks for whether counsel's disputed strategic choice was ever actually contradicted by the record -- if opposing counsel and the government agreed with the defendant's own position at sentencing, an ineffective-assistance claim premised on that same point fails both Strickland prongs.

“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.”

Procedural preferences

The court holds strictly to state-law pre-suit notice and pleading requirements even where the underlying tort theory survives -- a partial motion to dismiss in a products-liability case split cleanly by claim rather than being decided as an all-or-nothing motion.

“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.”

Cautions

On compassionate release, the court weighs a defendant's own disciplinary and self-harm history against them: medical needs created substantially by the defendant's own conduct in custody carry less weight, and a pattern of disregarding prison rules undercuts any claim that release conditions would be honored.

“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.

Kell v. Freedom Arms Inc.
CV 24-31-M-DWM · 2024-05-22
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“IT IS ORDERED that Freedom Arms' motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) and Kell's motion for jurisdictional discovery (Doc. 12) are DENIED as MOOT.”

Miscellaneous relief (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cooley
9:21-cv-00136-DWM · 2023-03-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“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.”

Kaparich v. Ethicon, Inc.
CV 20-77-M-DWM · 2020-08-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

United States v. Wahl
CR 22-58-M-DWM · 2024-07-26
Motions to dismiss (government) Granted

“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.”

United States v. Metelus
CR 24-34-M-DWM · 2025-02-05
Motions to dismiss (government) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that the government's motion, (Doc. 41), is GRANTED and Count 2 of the Indictment ... is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Lonas v. Bludworth
6:24-cv-00042 · 2024-10-17
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Austin James Lonas.”

United States v. Williams
CR 09-20-M-DWM · 2024-07-02
Motion for compassionate release (defendant) Denied

“ORDER denying 66 Motion for Compassionate Release as to William Vernon Williams.”

Alario v. Knudsen
CV 23-56-M-DWM · 2024-05-15
Motions to stay (joint/unopposed) Granted

“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.”

Alario v. Knudsen
CV 23-56-M-DWM · 2023-11-30
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“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.”

United States v. McGough
CR 19-44-M-DWM · 2021-08-04
Habeas 2255 (defendant) Denied

“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.”

Raugust v. Abbey
CV 20-9-H-DWM · 2022-04-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Abbey's motions for summary judgment (Docs. 52, 85) are DENIED”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Raugust's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 67) is GRANTED.”

United States v. Goodman
CR 19-43-M-DWM · 2023-03-10
Habeas 2255 (defendant) Denied

“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.

Put Judge Molloy's record to work

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

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