John T. Johnston
How Judge Johnston rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Johnston
John T. Johnston serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Montana in Great Falls. He earned degrees from Western Montana College and the University of Montana School of Law.
Judge Johnston's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Johnston'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 Johnston decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Albert’s civil rights suit, Johnston recommended dismissing a claim against the county because the complaint did not identify the alleged policy, custom, or practice with enough detail to let the county defend itself.
“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.”
In a police-force case, the court declined to resolve competing accounts of force used against a restrained person on summary judgment and found clearly established law relevant to the remaining claim.
“factual issues remain regarding whether Souza and Marshall’s kneeing and punching Rolfs in the head and torso after Rolfs was prone, restrained, and not resisting constitutes excessive force.”
In Allred, Johnston held that amended claims against the insurer did not relate back because the plaintiffs knew the insurer’s role and had chosen to sue a different party. He granted the insurer summary judgment on limitations grounds.
“Allreds made a deliberate choice to sue Bissell instead of Travelers while fully understanding the status and role of each of them regarding their claims related to their vacation home’s alleged insufficient coverage limits.”
Procedural preferences
In Newberry’s civil rights suit, Johnston recommended denying the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion after the statements of undisputed facts failed to comply with the local rule.
“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.”
In Ostermiller’s civil rights case, he denied her early discovery motion because the local rule barred discovery before a scheduling order in an action brought without counsel.
“Pursuant to Local Rule 26.1(d), ‘in actions brought without counsel, no party may begin discovery until a scheduling order has been issued.’”
In Filesteel, Johnston allowed the United States to amend its crossclaim after finding diligence, no futility, and no prejudice to the opposing parties.
“The Court agrees. United States acted diligently in seeking to amend its Cross Claim following Vista’s Motion to Dismiss. The Amended Cross Claim is not futile and will not prejudice Vista and Kahlon.”
Cautions
In Shreves v. Harris, he allowed amendments tied to an existing course of alleged retaliation but denied a proposed count that treated separate interactions with different correctional officers as a single transaction.
“Multiple unpleasant interactions with correctional officers are not necessarily ‘the same’ transaction of occurrence or a ‘series of transactions or occurrences.’”
In Lowry, Johnston deemed the plaintiff’s missed response deadline an admission under the local rule and dismissed without prejudice.
“The Court deems Lowry’s failure to respond as an admission that Defendants’ Motion is well taken.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Harper's petition (Doc. 1) should be DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 14) is DENIED.”
“This action should be DISMISSED. ... This is not a defect which could be cured by amendment.”
“Leave to amend or supplement the pleading is GRANTED as follows ... Leave to amend or supplement the pleading should be DENIED as follows ...”
“The motion for discovery (Doc. 7) will be denied.”
“Defendants CVS Pharmacy and Haley Reichenbach should be DISMISSED.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 ...”
“The motion to compel (Doc. 69) is DENIED.”
“Newberry's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 56) should be DENIED.”
“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.”
“The City’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 35) on Rolfs’ Count III: Negligence is GRANTED.”
“Souza and Marshall’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) regarding any alleged violation of Rolfs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights is GRANTED. 3. Souza and Marshall’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) on Count I: § 1983 is DENIED.”
“the Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“The Court recommends that the district court: 1. Deny Defendants’ motion as to Count 1; 2. Deny Defendants’ motion as to Jace’s claim against Deputy Hecker and Larry’s claim against Deputy Kosola in Count 2; 3. Grant Defendant’s motion and as to Larry’s claims against Deputy Hecker in Count 2; 4. Grant Defendants’ motion as to Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6.”
“The Court agrees and issues the following clarification:”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Ninth Judicial District Court, Glacier County, State of Montana.”
“Hayden’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 9) is DENIED.”
“Lexington’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED.”
“1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. 2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
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.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 8 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 10 | 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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Montana, not for Judge Johnston: 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 Johnston with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Johnston, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Johnston's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace