William Walter Mercer
How Judge Mercer rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mercer
William Walter Mercer is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Montana. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Mercer received a commission on November 6, 2025.
Judge Mercer's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Mercer'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 Mercer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Mercer independently checked the state court record rather than taking the petitioner's characterization of her sentence at face value, and found her core factual premise (a parole restriction) was contradicted by the state judgment itself.
“A review of Schimming's judgment, specifically states that 'there are no parole restrictions imposed by the Court on the defendant's sentence.'”
In a prisoner's RLUIPA claim over religious headwear, the defense won summary judgment not by disputing the sincerity of the plaintiff's belief but by tracing the prison policy's history through two earlier, less restrictive versions and showing each was tried and found insufficient before the current rule was adopted: a documented trial-and-error record persuaded the court the current policy was the least restrictive means available, even though the record otherwise supported a substantial-burden showing for the plaintiff.
“Having moved from a less restrictive to a more restrictive policy over time, Defendants have sufficiently considered less restrictive means to further their compelling governmental interest.”
Procedural preferences
In Schimming v. Weston, Mercer dismissed a state prisoner's federal habeas petition without prejudice at screening. The petitioner reported a pending state motion on the same sentencing issue, and Mercer found that she had not exhausted state judicial remedies.
“[S]he has an active motion pending before the state district court seeking, at least in part, the same relief sought in this Court.”
In Snyder v. Alder, he granted a motion for a more definite statement and gave the plaintiff until April 24, 2026, to amend the complaint under Rule 12(e).
“ORDER granting 8 Motion for a More Definite Statement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), to set forth a more definite statement of his claims on or before April 24, 2026.”
In Gray v. Gootkin, Mercer denied a motion to dismiss. He later ruled on the defense summary judgment motion.
“ORDER denying 36 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge William W. Mercer on 1/27/2026.”
Cautions
In Schimming v. Weston, Mercer warned the petitioner that continued federal filings raising unexhausted or noncognizable claims could affect her ability to obtain later habeas review, even though he dismissed the current petition without prejudice.
“Schimming is cautioned, however, that a petitioner generally has only one opportunity to file a federal habeas petition challenging a state judgment of conviction. Any continued pro se filings related to unexhausted and/or non-cognizable claims may have a preclusive effect on her ability to seek and obtain future federal habeas relief.”
In Emrit v. Snoop Doggy Dogg, Mercer adopted a recommendation to dismiss the complaint and certified that an appeal from that disposition would not be taken in good faith.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any appeal from this disposition would not be taken in good faith.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Schimming's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Indictment in this case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“the Clerk of Court is directed to strike Plaintiff's Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions, Remand, and Indictment of Systemic Fraud Upon the Court (Doc. 37)”
“and Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions and Indictment of Documentary Deceit (Doc. 42).”
“Defendant Tillman's motion to change plea (Doc. 18) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Scott's motion to change plea (Doc. 22) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Vincent's motion to change plea (Doc. 36) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Spence's motion to change plea (Doc. 51) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Birdinground's motion to change plea (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Erwin's motion to change plea (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Travis' motion to change plea (Doc. 34) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Aguilar's motion to change plea (Doc. 46) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 28 days (N = 1).
- The caseload sample spans a prisoner religious-exercise suit resolved on summary judgment, a police excessive-force suit partly resolved on summary judgment before settling, two Section 2254 habeas petitions dismissed at the screening stage, a state-prisoner Section 1983 screening dismissal with a PLRA strike, an insurance coverage dispute that settled after summary-judgment argument, a pro se prisoner civil-rights suit narrowed and then reshaped into a more-definite-statement order, and a disability-discrimination suit against a celebrity defendant dismissed for want of in forma pauperis status.
- Several other enumerated cases (a contract dispute, a removed products-liability suit) remain pending or were resolved on a remand ruling not reached in the record reviewed.
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 |
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 Mercer: 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 Mercer with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mercer, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mercer's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace