Ralph Robert Erickson

How Judge Erickson rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Erickson no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota
Position
district
Status
Elevated to a higher court
Served
2003–2017
Appointed by
George W. Bush (Republican)
Commissioned
2003-03-14
Education
Jamestown College (B.A., 1980); University of North Dakota School of Law (J.D., 1984)
Signed orders read
24

How Judge Erickson decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In the suppression context, the court examined the entire encounter and rejected consent produced by pressure rather than a real choice.

“Consent obtained by duress or coercion is not voluntary consent.”

In a Social Security appeal, the court applied deferential review while requiring substantial evidence across the whole record.

“the Commissioner’s findings are to be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.”

Procedural preferences

Reconsideration required manifest error and diligence; material available earlier did not justify reopening a prior ruling.

“Intermec has failed to meet the high standard of demonstrating a ‘manifest error of law or fact’ to warrant reconsideration of the Court’s previous Orders. Intermec has also failed to act with due diligence, rendering reconsideration inappropriate.”

The court enforced statutory exhaustion by looking to every step the prison grievance system made available.

“Proper exhaustion ‘means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly.’”

Cautions

A preliminary-injunction request failed when irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest did not favor relief.

“the court finds the plaintiffs have failed to establish irreparable harm, or that the balance of harms and interest of the public weigh in their favor.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. Rodriguez
2:04-cr-00055-RRE · 2007-02-13
Motion to stay sentence (defendant) Granted

“As Defendant has appealed both his conviction and death sentence, the Court stays the sentence of death imposed on February 8, 2007.”

Allen v. United States Air Force
2:07-cv-00003-RRE-KKK · 2008-09-25
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant United States Air Force’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“DENIES Plaintiff Allen’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Koenig v. State of North Dakota
2:10-cv-00034-RRE-ARS · 2010-05-14
Motion for emergency stay (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“Koenig’s motion for an emergency stay is DENIED”

Habeas petition (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“Koenig’s petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.”

Shaw v. Shell
2:15-cv-00102-RRE-ARS · 2017-05-10
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Shell’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; the personal capacity excessive force claim against Shell is dismissed with prejudice;”

United States v. Hernandez
3:04-cr-00057 · 2008-12-03
Motion to vacate sentence (defendant) Denied

“His motion to vacate is therefore DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

United States v. Keiser
3:05-cr-00080 · 2006-12-04
Motion to proceed pro se (defendant) Granted

“Motion to Proceed Pro Se is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that Defendant be permitted to represent himself at every stage of these proceedings.”

Fenstad v. Barnhart
3:06-cv-00024-RRE-KKK · 2007-02-14
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”

Dakota Airlift, Inc. v. United States
3:06-cv-00049-RRE-KKK · 2006-10-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the instant suit. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Alien Technology Corp. v. Intermec, Inc.
3:06-cv-00051-PDW-ARS · 2010-12-15
Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Intermec’s motion for reconsideration is denied.”

Baker v. Astrue
3:07-cv-00094-RRE-KKK · 2009-03-04
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED (doc. #7)”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED (doc. #6).”

United States v. Allmaras
3:08-cr-00016-RRE · 2011-09-09
Motions to dismiss (government) Granted

“The United States’ motion to dismiss the first alleged violation is granted.”

Gleeson v. McDonald
3:08-cv-00126-RRE-KKK · 2009-06-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED;”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Lonnie Wangen’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is also GRANTED;”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiff Gleeson’s motions for summary judgment, for a trial date, for evidence, and to strike are DENIED as moot.”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The oldest sampled matters include Social Security appeals, foreclosures, civil-rights, product-liability, employee-benefits, forfeiture, and government enforcement cases. All ten sampled cases were terminated, but their entry streams were unavailable, so no motion timing or disposition rates are reported.

A historical record

Judge Erickson no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.