Jason A. Robertson
How Judge Robertson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On motion-to-dismiss review of qualified-immunity defenses, he separates claims where the alleged conduct maps onto clearly established law from those where it does not, dismissing the latter while letting fact-dependent claims proceed to discovery.
“At least insofar as an excessive force claim is alleged, both of these elements are met. Qualified immunity will be denied at this time until further facts surrounding the force employed is developed.”
In Social Security appeals, he looks specifically for an ALJ crediting only the parts of a medical opinion favorable to non-disability while ignoring the same source's contrary findings -- this pattern, not just an unfavorable outcome, is what drives reversal.
“the ALJ blatantly disregarded the consistency of Dr. Cook's opinion with the other medical opinions in respect to Claimant's mental impairments. Instead, the ALJ picked evidence from each opinion that supported a finding of non-disability.”
On summary judgment in employment-discrimination cases, a plaintiff's own concession that she was objectively the weakest candidate under facially neutral, pre-set interview criteria undercuts a pretext argument, even where a decisionmaker is alleged to have made isolated discriminatory remarks.
“She proffers no evidence that any of the interviewers held discriminatory attitudes or participated in past discrimination and concedes that she received the lowest interview score from each panelist.”
Procedural preferences
He will not consider video evidence like dashcam or bodycam footage at the motion-to-dismiss stage without converting the motion to one for summary judgment, even when a defendant urges the court to take judicial notice of it.
“This Court, however, does not find that the videos are the type of exhibits which are typically considered in connection with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”
Where a party's discovery responses directly contradict the same party's own sworn testimony in a related criminal proceeding, he will strike the responses and deem the underlying requests for admission admitted rather than let the inconsistency go to a jury.
“Defendant Dallas Ewton's counsel requested that the responses to the Requests for Admissions be stricken and deemed admitted. Following the hearing, this Court granted counsel's request and entered an Order striking Defendant Dallas Ewton's responses to the Requests for Admissions and deemed them admitted.”
Cautions
He treats a claimant's brief that omits citations to the administrative record as a serious weakness in a Social Security appeal, expressly noting the deficiency before ruling against the claimant.
“This Court would first point out that Claimant's brief lacks any citations to the administrative record and is limited in its usefulness in its brevity.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Tyler Dallas Ewton filed July 20, 2022 (Docket Entry # 49) is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, judgment is entered against Defendant Tyler Dallas Ewton and in favor of Plaintiff on Plaintiff's claims for (1) violation of P.D.'s Fourteenth Amendment rights as enforced through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, (2) assault and battery, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress in an amount to be determined.”
“it is the recommendation of the undersigned that the Commissioner's [decision] be REVERSED and the case REMANDED with instructions for Defendant to award benefits.”
“Therefore, the Magistrate Judge finds for the above and foregoing reasons, the ruling of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration should be and is AFFIRMED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Houston Murray's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry #16) is hereby GRANTED, in part, in that the Section 1981 claim, Section 1983 official capacity claim, and any asserted state law claims are hereby DISMISSED. The remainder of the Motion is hereby DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of Sallisaw's and Terry Franklin's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry #17) is hereby GRANTED, in part, in that the Section 1983 official capacity claim against Franklin, any asserted state law claims, any declaratory or injunctive relief, and the claim for punitive damages are hereby DISMISSED. The remainder of the Motion is hereby DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Houston Murray's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry #66) is hereby GRANTED. Murray is entitled to qualified immunity for the reasons stated herein.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of Sallisaw's and Terry Franklin's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry #67) is hereby GRANTED.”
“IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS COURT that Defendant's First Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Docket Entry #30) ... be DENIED.”
“IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS COURT that ... Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Docket Entry #31) be DENIED.”
“Therefore, this Court finds, in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g), the ruling of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should be and is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order.”
“Therefore, this Court finds, in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g), the ruling of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration should be and is AFFIRMED.”
“WHEREFORE, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Christine Wormuth, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Army [Doc. 73], is hereby GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Oklahoma Corporation Commission's Motion to Dismiss Under the Eleventh Amendment, for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Docket Entry #49) is hereby GRANTED. Defendant Oklahoma Corporation Commission is hereby DISMISSED from this action.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion of Defendants Daniel and Danielle Flener to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claim Against Them as Moot (Docket Entry #56) is hereby GRANTED. Defendants Daniel and Danielle Flener are hereby DISMISSED from this action.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants A & A Tank Truck Co. and Omni Environmental Solutions Inc.'s Motion to Stay or Dismiss Case, or to Transfer Case to Western District of Louisiana to Determine First-to-File Issues (Docket Entry #27) is hereby GRANTED, in part, in that this case is hereby STAYED to allow the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to proceed to definitively determine the application of the first-to-file rule. ... The remaining alternative relief requested in the Motion -- dismissal and to transfer the case -- is hereby DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The caseload sample is dominated by consent Social Security disability appeals, along with civil-rights and prisoner suits, removed contract and insurance disputes, and a smaller group of referred federal criminal matters involving suppression and dismissal requests. Many sampled cases are consent civil matters in which Robertson enters final judgment and, when required, presides over jury trials.
Put Judge Robertson's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Robertson actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Robertson's own signed orders and cites them.