Timothy J. Cavan
How Judge Cavan rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cavan
Timothy J. Cavan serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Montana in Billings. He earned degrees from Montana State University Billings and the University of Montana School of Law.
Judge Cavan's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Cavan'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 Cavan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Miller v. Gilbert, Cavan recommended dismissing a civil rights suit against a state judge on judicial-immunity grounds. The challenged rulings were judicial acts, and the plaintiff's objection to personal jurisdiction did not show that the judge had acted in the clear absence of subject-matter jurisdiction.
“[E]ven assuming Judge Gilbert's assumption of jurisdiction was 'in excess of [her] jurisdiction,' the act was not done 'in the clear absence of jurisdiction.'”
In St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Franz Construction, Cavan granted the insurer summary judgment after finding the alleged takeover assistance was intentional and its harmful effects were objectively expected, leaving no covered accident under the policies.
“The harms that resulted to the North Dakota Plaintiffs from Don’s alleged intentional conduct are precisely those that would be expected: the loss of employees, customers, and equipment.”
In Bird v. United States, he recommended partial summary judgment for a child plaintiff on the comparative negligence defense because the mother’s possible negligence could not be imputed to the child under the cited Montana statutes.
“there is no provision under either Montana’s comparative negligence or apportionment statutes that would operate to impute Kaneisha’s negligence to O.M.”
In Willis v. Western National, Cavan rejected the insurer’s reasonable-basis defense after a state-court payment order had already rejected its proposed collateral-source exception for medical bills conditionally paid by Medicare.
“no reasonable basis to continue in its refusal to pay Tom’s past medical expenses, regardless of whether they had been conditionally paid by Medicare.”
In Laughery’s disability review, he remanded after finding the administrative law judge had acknowledged mild mental limitations but failed to address them in the residual functional capacity assessment.
“Therefore, the ALJ erred by failing to account for Plaintiff’s mental impairments in his determination of the RFC.”
In Savage’s disability review, he remanded after the Commissioner failed to resolve conflicting job-number estimates from the vocational expert and the claimant.
“Because the Commissioner never addressed and resolved the discrepancy between the job-numbers evidence offered by the vocational expert and Plaintiff, this matter must be remanded to ALJ to address the inconsistency in the record evidence.”
Procedural preferences
In Colvin and Tecca’s debt collection case, he recommended dismissal after the plaintiffs did not amend their complaint by the court’s deadline despite a warning that nonresponse would lead to a dismissal recommendation.
“Plaintiffs were specifically advised that, if they failed to respond to the order, the Court would recommend dismissal of the case.”
In a mineral-interest dispute, the court allowed amendment of a jurisdictionally deficient complaint where the plaintiff could identify an express waiver of federal sovereign immunity.
“It appears Phoenix may be able to amend its complaint to properly identify a waiver of sovereign immunity and allege the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction.”
In Meyers v. Target, he dismissed the wrongful discharge claim without prejudice and allowed amendment because the pleading lacked facts to support a distinct state claim, while an amendment might cure that gap.
“because the Court does not find that amendment of Meyers’ WDEA claim would necessarily be futile, this claim is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.”
Cautions
In Miller v. Gilbert, Cavan recommended dismissal without leave to amend because the defendant judge had absolute judicial immunity for the challenged conduct and amendment would be futile.
“Where amendment would be futile, there is no reason to prolong litigation by allowing further amendments.”
In that insurance case, Cavan declined to apply a 2023 statutory bar to the third-party claimants’ common-law bad-faith claims because their action was filed in 2022.
“no such statutory preemption existed when this case was filed in June 2022.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Judge Gilbert's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) be GRANTED, and the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice”
After Colvin and Tecca did not amend their complaint by the court’s deadline, Cavan recommended dismissing the action for failure to state a claim and certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The earlier motion to dismiss had already been granted with leave to amend; this recommendation did not decide a new motion.
“Purified’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is DENIED.”
“Kraken’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative to Dismiss (Doc. 50) is DENIED.”
“BLM’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 45) is GRANTED, without prejudice and with leave to amend.”
“Phoenix’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply or, Alternatively, to Disregard or Strike New Arguments Raised in Defendant BLM’s Reply Brief (Doc. 63) is DENIED as moot.”
“St. Paul’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 22) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) be GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.”
“The United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) be GRANTED.”
“Target’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:”
“it is RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).”
“Willis’s motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 25) as to Western National’s affirmative defense of reasonable basis in law or fact is GRANTED.”
“Western National’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 33) is DENIED.”
“Western National’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 36) is DENIED.”
“the Court finds the ALJ’s decision should be REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings.”
“the Court finds the ALJ’s decision should be REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 519 days (N = 3).
- Cavan's docket includes a sustained run of consent-track Social Security disability appeals alongside insurance, contract, personal-injury, and civil-rights cases.
- Seventeen Social Security appeals sampled across multiple filing-year cohorts were decided by Cavan under 28 U.S.C. 636(c); most resulted in reversal and remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), while a minority affirmed the Commissioner's denial of benefits.
- New Social Security and general civil matters remained assigned to him in August 2026.
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 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 Cavan: 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 Cavan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cavan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cavan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace