Clare R. Hochhalter
How Judge Hochhalter rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of North Dakota since 2019, sitting in Bismarck. He succeeded Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller Jr. His work includes referred civil matters and criminal magistrate duties.
Judge Hochhalter's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hochhalter'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).
How Judge Hochhalter decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In State of North Dakota v. United States Department of Interior, Hochhalter granted the state's unopposed motion to stay the case and briefing schedule for good cause.
“For good cause shown, the court GRANTS North Dakota's motion (Doc. No. 57) and stays the case and the briefing schedule pending further order.”
A party’s disagreement with an order to show cause did not establish a basis for recusal.
“Disagreement is not grounds for recusal.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For good cause shown, the court GRANTS North Dakota's motion (Doc. No. 57) and stays the case and the briefing schedule pending further order.”
28 U.S.C. 1915A initial review of a pro se Section 1983 complaint. Recommended dismissing official-capacity claims on sovereign immunity grounds because states and agencies are not 'persons' under Section 1983 and North Dakota has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity, while preserving individual-capacity claims. Adopted in full by Judge Traynor over the plaintiff's qualified-immunity objection. The recommendation distinguishes sovereign from qualified immunity and preserves viable individual-capacity claims rather than dismissing the complaint wholesale. This was a screening disposition rather than a ruling on a party motion.
On sua sponte jurisdictional review, Hochhalter recommended dismissing the diversity action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff Coon and the defendant were both North Dakota citizens, defeating complete diversity. With no objections, the recommendation was adopted in full. The order shows that he polices subject-matter jurisdiction at the outset.
On in forma pauperis screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) of a serial pro se litigant's civil-rights complaint naming Musk, Ramaswamy, Speaker Johnson, and DOGE, Hochhalter recommended sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim and as frivolous, with the pauper application moot. Hovland adopted the recommendation in full, dismissed without prejudice, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Hochhalter adopted the parties' joint stipulation to amend the scheduling order and rescheduled trial sua sponte to allow time for dispositive motions. The stipulated scheduling order shows his case-management role in a commercial non-compete and insurance-producer dispute.
“Petitioner's Motion to Recuse (Doc. No. 18) is therefore DENIED.”
“The Court ADOPTS the parties’ stipulation (Doc. No. 25) and STAYS all discovery deadlines pending further order.”
“The court ADOPTS the parties’ third Joint Stipulation to Stay Discovery (Doc. No. 27). Discovery shall be stayed pending further order.”
“the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED,”
“Motion for Hearing on the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 26) is deemed MOOT”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Prisoner civil-rights and SS appeals run a few months to ~11 months; many pro se screening cases terminate in weeks; criminal-magistrate (mj) warrant matters terminate the same day. Small recency sample; not a representative distribution. Mays v. United States (1:26-cv-00113) was a habeas matter Hochhalter transferred to W.D. Pa. after direct assignment (20 days).
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 | 7 |
| 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 | 7 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 9 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 13 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 13 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 11 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 8 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 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 North Dakota, not for Judge Hochhalter: 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 | 200 | 8.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 5 | not reported |
| Closed before pretrial | 188 | 8.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 7 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 200 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 186 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 169 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 190 | 13.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 202 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 234 | 11 months |
| Sep 2019 | 229 | 10.9 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 Hochhalter with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hochhalter, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hochhalter's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace