Daniel Lee Hovland
How Judge Hovland rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Hovland received a commission on November 26, 2002. Judge Hovland assumed senior status on November 10, 2019.
Judge Hovland's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hovland'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 Hovland decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hart v. Bertsch, Hovland adopted an unopposed magistrate recommendation after reviewing the record. He allowed the prisoner’s racial discrimination claim to survive summary judgment in part, denied dismissal, and appointed counsel.
“The Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 31) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as explained in the Report and Recommendation.”
In a reviewed immigration-detention habeas case, granted relief to the extent necessary to provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge, rendering related interim-relief motions moot.
“The Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED to the extent it requests a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.”
Procedural preferences
In North Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v. United States, Hovland denied the federal government’s partial summary judgment motion and granted the counties’ motion only as to Township Road #169 because disputes over other roads required trial.
“the Court DENIES the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 238) and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Counties’ motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 237).”
The court required an entry of default before considering default judgment under Rule 55.
“As MG has failed to comply with Rule 55, the Court DENIES the MG’s motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 77).”
In Ashcraft, held a summary-judgment request until discovery could develop identified facts needed by the opposing party.
“The Court’s preference in these types of cases is to decide motions for summary judgment based upon a fully developed record after discovery has been completed.”
Cautions
In Christianson v. McLean County, Hovland reconsidered an earlier order and dismissed medical malpractice claims against a nurse practitioner and clinic without prejudice. The plaintiff served the required expert affidavit after the three-month deadline and had not sought an extension before it expired.
“For the reasons outlined above, the motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 40) is GRANTED and the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants' Kerri Benning, FNP-C ... and the Underwood Clinic, P.C. d/b/a the Washburn Clinic are DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with Section 28-01-46.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons outlined above, the motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 40) is GRANTED and the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants' Kerri Benning, FNP-C ... and the Underwood Clinic, P.C. d/b/a the Washburn Clinic are DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with Section 28-01-46.”
“the Court ... GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Counties' motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 237).”
“the Court DENIES the United States' motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 238)”
“The Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 31) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as explained in the Report and Recommendation.”
“The Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 42) is DENIED.”
“The Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is GRANTED.”
“Having appointed counsel for the Plaintiff, the pro se motion to amend (Docket No. 52) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 29) in its entirety and ORDERS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 15) be GRANTED.”
“The Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED to the extent it requests a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.”
“The Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction as to his habeas petition (Doc. Nos. 3 and 8) and motion for a hearing (Doc. No. 6) are moot and are therefore DENIED.”
“The Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED to the extent it requests a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.”
“Accordingly, the motion (Doc. No. 181) is GRANTED. The Defendant’s sentence is reduced to TIME SERVED.”
“As MG has failed to comply with Rule 55, the Court DENIES the MG’s motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 77).”
“the Third-Party Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 90 and 101) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as explained herein.”
The court adopted a magistrate judge’s screening recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The dismissal was not the disposition of an adversarial motion.
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED.”
“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 4).”
“Defendants’ motion for hearing (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed case durations range from a 28-day commercial dismissal to a 2,940-day property-boundary dispute. This is a descriptive sample rather than a representative caseload measure; one sampled insurance case remained pending.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 12 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 7 | 9 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 8 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 6 | 6 |
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 Hovland: 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 Hovland with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hovland, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hovland's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace