John T. Johnston

United States District Court for the District of Montana 6 signed orders read

How Judge Johnston decides

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

What persuades

Johnston requires a Monell plaintiff to identify a specific policy, custom, or practice with enough factual detail to let the government entity defend itself -- a bare assertion that conduct followed some unidentified policy is not enough to reach discovery.

“He has not alleged sufficient facts regarding the specific nature of the alleged policy, custom, or practice to allow the County to effectively defend itself nor has he set forth sufficient facts to plausibly suggest he is entitled to relief.”

Procedural preferences

Johnston enforces the local summary-judgment briefing rules strictly: a statement of undisputed facts that does not comply with the local rule is treated as failing to establish any undisputed fact at all, regardless of the merits otherwise argued.

“The several documents labeled "Statement of Undisputed Facts" fail to comply with L.R. 56.1(a)(1)-(3) ... and, consequently, fail to show evidence supporting any undisputed fact. The motion is denied.”

For pro se plaintiffs, Johnston holds discovery requests to the local rule barring discovery before a scheduling order issues, even in a civil-rights case alleging serious misconduct.

“Pursuant to Local Rule 26.1(d), "in actions brought without counsel, no party may begin discovery until a scheduling order has been issued."”

Cautions

Johnston will deny leave to add new claims or defendants where the plaintiff cannot show they arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the existing claims, even where each individual claim might otherwise state a violation.

“Multiple unpleasant interactions with correctional officers are not necessarily "the same" transaction of occurrence or a "series of transactions or occurrences."”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Harper v. Kirkegard
CV 15-30-H-DLC-JTJ · 2015-09-22
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Harper's petition (Doc. 1) should be DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Drake v. Great Falls Regional Prison
CV 17-00126-GF-BMM-JTJ · 2018-06-01
Motion to appoint counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“The Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 14) is DENIED.”

Screening dismissal recommended (court) Granted

“This action should be DISMISSED. ... This is not a defect which could be cured by amendment.”

Shreves v. Harris
CV 18-97-H-DLC-JTJ · 2020-11-19
Motion to amend (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Leave to amend or supplement the pleading is GRANTED as follows ... Leave to amend or supplement the pleading should be DENIED as follows ...”

Ostermiller v. CVS Pharmacy
CV 19-00009-BLG-BMM-JTJ · 2019-07-10
Motion for discovery (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion for discovery (Doc. 7) will be denied.”

Screening dismissal recommended (court) Granted

“Defendants CVS Pharmacy and Haley Reichenbach should be DISMISSED.”

Screening dismissal recommended (court) Granted

“Ms. Ostermiller's claims regarding the search of her person on December 13, 2016 at the DUI-Center during which marijuana was found on her person should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Albert v. Montana Department of Corrections
CV 17-00069-H-DLC-JTJ · 2019-03-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Missoula County's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 36) should be GRANTED IN PART in that: a. ... should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. b. Mr. Albert's medical malpractice claim ... should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 50) should be GRANTED IN PART in that: a. Defendants Michael and Kirkegard should be DISMISSED ... d. All individually named State Defendants should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from the state law claims ...”

Newberry v. McGillis-Hiner
CV 19-50-H-DLC-JTJ · 2021-01-07
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“The motion to compel (Doc. 69) is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Newberry's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 56) should be DENIED.”

Motion to amend (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Newberry's motion to amend (Doc. 29) should be DENIED IN PART. The request for leave to file the proposed second amended complaint (Doc. 29-2), excepting the ADA claim, should be DENIED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 281 days (N = 9).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 104.5 days (N = 14).

Johnston's enumerated docket includes a sustained run of consent-track Social Security disability appeals from 2013 to the present, alongside diversity insurance and personal-injury suits, ERISA claims, and prisoner and other civil-rights cases. Eleven Social Security-related dockets sampled across two filing-year cohorts were briefed and decided by Johnston himself under 636(c) consent, not referred to a district judge; roughly half reverse-and-remand the Commissioner's denial of benefits (a mix of full and partial remands) and the rest affirm the denial.

Put Judge Johnston's record to work

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

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