Kathleen L. DeSoto
How Judge DeSoto rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge DeSoto
Kathleen L. DeSoto serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Montana in Missoula. She earned an undergraduate degree from Santa Clara University and later entered the legal profession in Montana.
Judge DeSoto's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge DeSoto'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 DeSoto decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In The People of the State of Montana v. Bullock, she recommended dismissing a pro se challenge to pandemic directives with prejudice because the petitioner could not represent all Montanans and alleged no particularized injury to establish standing.
“The generalization that all Montanans were harmed by the Governor’s Directives is insufficient to establish an injury in fact or a causal connection, and instead requires the Court to engage in ‘pure speculation’.”
In Joshua W. H. v. Dudek, DeSoto affirmed a benefits denial. She found that any error in finding capacity for medium rather than light work was harmless because the vocational expert identified jobs at the light exertional level.
“The Court has also determined that even if the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff capable of medium work instead of light work... any error was harmless because the jobs identified by the vocational expert at step five involved light-level work.”
In Weik v. Asby, DeSoto recommended dismissing federal civil rights claims with prejudice because further amendment would be futile, while recommending dismissal without prejudice of an unexhausted claim and state claims. Judge Christensen adopted the recommendation.
“Judge DeSoto found that granting Weik leave to amend his claims under §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988 would be futile and therefore, those claims should be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.”
In Todd v. City of Helena, DeSoto found a plausible disability-discrimination claim at the pleading stage because the complaint alleged officers denied a specific request for a mental health counselor while the person remained barricaded without an immediate safety exigency.
“the Court finds Todd has plausibly pleaded deliberate indifference based on HPD’s failure to accommodate his known disability.”
Procedural preferences
In Palmer v. City of Billings, she recommended dismissing time-barred trespass and conversion claims but allowing constitutional search claims to proceed because the complaint alleged officers seized items beyond the warrant's scope.
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) Counts III and IV be GRANTED, and be DENIED as to all other claims as discussed above.”
In Vondra v. City of Billings, DeSoto dismissed official-capacity claims against city officials as duplicative of claims against the city itself. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, which remained available through the city claim.
“Because Plaintiffs' claims against the Individual Defendants are duplicative of their claims against the City of Billings, the Individual Defendants are properly dismissed.”
In related civil cases, the court referred the parties to mediation and deferred consolidation and scheduling changes until after the settlement conference.
“the motion to consolidate (Doc. 21) is DENIED without prejudice to refile following the conclusion of the settlement conference.”
Cautions
In Old Bull v. United States, she treated the plaintiff's failure to respond to a jurisdictional dismissal motion as an admission under the local rule, and independently found tribal sovereign immunity required dismissal of the officer.
“Consistent with the applicable Local Rule, the Court takes Old Bull’s failure to file a response brief as an admission that Klier’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is well-taken.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that Bullock's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) be GRANTED, and this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Reviewing de novo, the Court reaches the same conclusions as Judge DeSoto... Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Judge DeSoto's Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 66) is ADOPTED in full... The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55) is GRANTED; Plaintiff's Cross-motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 58) is DENIED.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) Counts III and IV be GRANTED, and be DENIED as to all other claims as discussed above.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.”
“Hermanns’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rhodes's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Sheriff's Department's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) be DENIED as moot.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 38) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.”
“Defendant Hardy’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) and Defendants Asby, Posio, and Peterson’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) be GRANTED.”
“Mr. Reber's Petition (Doc. 1) should be DISMISSED with prejudice as procedurally defaulted without excuse.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 105 days (N = 6).
- DeSoto's enumerated docket includes a sustained run of consent-track Social Security disability appeals across her entire tenure (2019 through her current 2024-2026 caseload), alongside diversity insurance and contract suits, prisoner civil-rights cases, general civil-rights litigation, and environmental/administrative-law challenges.
- Eleven Social Security appeals sampled across her tenure were fully briefed or resolved by an agency remand motion and decided by DeSoto herself under 636(c) consent, split between reversals/remands for further agency proceedings and affirmances of the Commissioner's denial of benefits.
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 6 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 DeSoto: 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 DeSoto with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge DeSoto, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge DeSoto's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace