Gerald L. Jackson
How Judge Jackson rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jackson
Gerald L. Jackson has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma since 2022, sitting in Muskogee. Before joining the bench, he practiced commercial and corporate litigation in Tulsa. He earned degrees from Missouri State University and the University of Tulsa College of Law.
Judge Jackson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Jackson, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Joint Status Report ↗
- Discovery Protective Order, Confidential Language ↗
- Civil Pretrial Order ↗
- Protective Orders Seeking Confidential Treatment of Materials or Information Produced, or to be Produced, During Discovery ↗
Key rules
Discovery
A proposed discovery protective order must use the court template with case specific changes shown by redline or tracked changes.
“An attached proposed protective order using the template provided below customized (using redlining or track changes) to the case”
Trial
The civil pretrial order must list each remaining legal issue concisely.
“The following issues of law, and no others, remain to be litigated upon the trial:”
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 Jackson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a negligence suit, Jackson found alternative liability theories against AAM and Alpha unnecessary because they accepted responsibility for any negligence by their driver.
“AAM and Alpha are responsible for any negligence of their driver pursuant to the respondeat superior doctrine and imposing liability on them under any other theory would be 'unnecessary and superfluous.'”
In a qualified-immunity dispute involving custodial medical care, Jackson applied circuit law recognizing that right as clearly established.
“In this Circuit, '[t]he right to custodial medical care is clearly established.'”
Procedural preferences
In a criminal case during the McGirt-related calendar surge, Jackson shortened the objection period to seven days and allowed seven more days for responses to preserve the trial date.
“The exigencies of the Court's calendar amid the ongoing McGirt crisis, and the need to maintain the trial date in this matter, require the Court to shorten the window for filing objections to seven (7) days with an additional seven (7) days for responses.”
In Thomas v. Rentie, Jackson denied a post-trial motion without prejudice because the plaintiff cited no specific trial evidence to support overturning the jury's verdict. He gave her 28 days to renew the Rule 50 or 59 request on the grounds previously raised.
“the Motion to Reconsider Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and/or Motion for a New Trial [Docket No. 116] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REURGING. It is further Ordered that Plaintiff has 28 days from the entry of this Order to file any further motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 or 59”
Cautions
In First National Bank & Trust Co. of Okmulgee v. Young, Jackson granted the bank's motion to remand a trust dispute. He found necessary nondiverse parties defeated diversity jurisdiction and that the redacted record did not establish an amount in controversy above $75,000.
“Mindful that '[r]emoval statutes are to be strictly construed, and all doubts are to be resolved against removal,' ... the Court declines to assume the pecuniary effect of Davis and Kennedy's alleged conduct although it appears likely to be substantial.”
In a suppression dispute, Jackson applied the rule that Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be asserted on another person’s behalf.
“Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Brief in Support [Docket No. 13] be DENIED”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support [Docket No. 21] should be GRANTED”
“Defendants’ Motion in Limine [Docket No. 25] should be DENIED as moot.”
“the undersigned Magistrate Judge hereby RECOMMENDS that Defendant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training's Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Docket No. 49] be GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims as to CLEET be DISMISSED in their entirety on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.”
“the undersigned Magistrate Judge hereby RECOMMENDS the Motion of Defendants City of Sallisaw, Oklahoma, City Manager Keith Skelton, and Chief of Police Terry Franklin to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Brief in Support [Docket No. 48] be GRANTED such that Count II is dismissed for failure to state a claim and the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I and III such that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to the named parties.”
“the undersigned Magistrate Judge hereby RECOMMENDS that Defendants Sequoyah County, Lane, House, Edwards, Smith, and Ridinger's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Brief in Support [Docket No. 44], be GRANTED such that Sequoyah County is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to Counts I and II, and the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I and III as to Lane, House, Edwards, Smith, and Ridinger such that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to these named individuals.”
“the undersigned Magistrate Judge hereby recommends that Canal's Motion be GRANTED without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to amend their complaint.”
“the decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED.”
“Petitioner's Motion to Remand [Docket No. 9] is hereby GRANTED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“The Respondent Patricia Boyle Young's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and Brief in Support [Docket No. 7] ... are DENIED as moot without prejudice to re-urging in state court.”
“Respondent's Motion to Vacate [Docket No. 14] are DENIED as moot without prejudice to re-urging in state court.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Opening Brief in Support Thereof [Docket No. 45] is hereby GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike Class Allegations [Docket No. 62] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike Inadmissible Class Certification Evidence and Brief in Support [Docket No. 61] ... are hereby DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Newly Disclosed Experts M. Phyllis Bourque and William G. Foster and Brief in Support [Docket No. 91] are hereby DENIED.”
“Defendants AAM Network, Inc. and Alpha and Mike, LLC's Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Docket No. 9] is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Fourth and Eighth Causes of Action, which are dismissed without prejudice, and DENIED as to Plaintiff's Eleventh Cause of Action.”
“the undersigned hereby PROPOSES the findings set forth above and RECOMMENDS that the Defendants' Joint Motion to Suppress [Docket No. 39] be GRANTED IN PART as to the above-described statements by Johnston as to Johnston only, but otherwise DENIED.”
District judge's order on objections to Magistrate Judge Jackson's Report and Recommendation (document 63, cached above): adopted Jackson's factual findings in full, and adopted his legal conclusion in part while modifying it in part. Included here as background only, not as a second countable motion outcome (the underlying motion is already counted once, in the R&R entry above), to avoid double-counting the same suppression motion.
“the Defendants[']Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Docket No. 32] is DENIED IN PART as to his claims of deliberate indifference to a known medical need arising after the MRI was conducted ... against Defendants Hasenmyer and Dr. Meyer, and otherwise GRANTED. The Court finds that Plaintiff shall not be granted leave to further amend the Second Amended Complaint.”
“the decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The caseload sample is dominated by consent Social Security disability appeals decided directly by Jackson.
- Other matters include civil-rights and prisoner suits, removed contract and insurance disputes, motor-vehicle product and injury cases, an oil-and-gas royalty class action, immigration matters, and referred federal criminal proceedings.
- The sample includes both consent cases ending in final judgment and nondispositive work such as scheduling, protective orders, and settlement administration.
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 | 5 |
| 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 5 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 12 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 7 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 10 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, not for Judge Jackson: 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 | 329 | 7.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 12 | 2.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 309 | 7.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 3 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 5 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 329 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 375 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 327 | 13.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 290 | 15.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 326 | 13 months |
| Sep 2020 | 325 | 12.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 370 | 11.8 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 Jackson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jackson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jackson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace