Clare R. Hochhalter
How Judge Hochhalter decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Exercising a magistrate judge's direct case-management authority, Hochhalter grants unopposed stays of the case and briefing schedule for good cause, such as to let a party re-evaluate its position after related agency action or a parallel ruling.
“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.”
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.
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).
Put Judge Hochhalter's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Hochhalter actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Hochhalter's own signed orders and cites them.