John Edward Dowdell
How Judge Dowdell rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dowdell
John Edward Dowdell is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Dowdell received a commission on December 12, 2012. Judge Dowdell assumed senior status on June 21, 2021.
Judge Dowdell's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Dowdell, 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.
Key rules
Motions
File motions in limine by the scheduling-order deadline; those filed after the pretrial conference are untimely.
“Motions in limine (including Daubert motions) shall be filed in accordance with the Scheduling Order. Motions in Limine filed after the pretrial conference are untimely and will not be considered”
Trial
Clear computer use with the courtroom deputy before trial morning.
“Computers may be used by counsel, as long as such use is unobtrusive and is cleared through the courtroom deputy prior to the morning of 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 Dowdell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bloom’s failure-to-protect suit, Dowdell found evidence that Hammett knew of a substantial risk to Bloom yet disregarded it when he called for another inmate’s cell door to be opened.
“There is evidence supporting Bloom's claim that Hammett was aware of a substantial risk to Bloom and that, when he called for the cell door to Sexton's cell to be opened, he deliberately disregarded that risk.”
In United States v. Moreland, Dowdell rejected a First Amendment overbreadth challenge to the federal cyberstalking statute. He relied on its requirements of a course of conduct, substantial emotional distress, and intent to intimidate, harass, or injure.
“Instead, a conviction under the statute requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that his communications caused, attempted to cause, or were reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress, and that such transmissions were made with the intent to intimidate, harass, or injure.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Moreland, Dowdell granted a second motion to dismiss only in part. He excluded the charging language naming the complainant's immediate family from jury consideration and alternatively struck it as surplusage, while leaving the charge concerning the complainant in place.
“the defendant’s Second Dismissal Motion (Doc. 44) is granted in part, to the extent that the charging language ‘and CP’s immediate family’ will not be considered by the jury at trial”
Cautions
In Sutherlin v. Independent School District No. 40, Dowdell applied a five-part framework from another circuit to the student-on-student disability-harassment claim, as both sides proposed. He held that allegations of disability-related peer insults and the school's failure to respond to reports sufficiently pleaded that claim, while dismissing a separate direct-discrimination theory.
“At the dismissal stage, these allegations are sufficient to plead a claim for disability-based student-on-student harassment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“defendant Stanley Glanz's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32) is denied at this time.”
“OMUSA's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 36) is therefore denied.”
“Plaintiffs claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation are dismissed. All other claims remain.”
“the Healthcare Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Sever are denied.”
“the defendant's motion on this point is denied, as there is no such claim on which to grant judgment.”
“The defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 50) is denied, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s contract claim (Doc. 81) is granted, in accordance with this Opinion and Order.”
“Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment as to Hawkins's failure to accommodate claim under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.”
“the defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to Hawkins's hostile work environment claim.”
“Glanz's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 66) is denied.”
“the defendant's summary judgment motion (Doc. 78) is granted”
“Steve Toliver’s motion for summary judgment on the individual capacity claims against him (Doc. 113) is granted. ... The County’s motion for summary judgment on the official capacity/municipal liability claim (Doc. 113) is also granted.”
“The summary judgment motion filed by Kelly Birch and Adam Marshall (Doc. 114) is granted.”
“The 'renewed' motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Birch, Marshall, and Toliver (Doc. 198) is also granted.”
“Chad Pompa's motion (Doc. 117) is granted in part and denied in part: it is granted as to Bloom's conspiracy and failure to train claims; and it is denied as to Bloom's Section 1983 claim and request for punitive damages against Pompa.”
“Jeremiah Hammett's motion (Doc. 118) is granted in part and denied in part: it is granted as to Bloom's conspiracy, failure to train, and destruction of property claims to the extent such claims were asserted against Hammett; and it is denied as to Bloom's Section 1983 claim.”
“The CHM defendants' dismissal motion (Doc. 15) is denied.”
“For the same reasons set forth above in denying CHC's dismissal motion, Claxton's dismissal motion will be denied.”
“The motion to dismiss is denied to the extent based upon the statute of limitations.”
“BNSF's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's allegation of inadequate manpower is denied.”
“As such, plaintiff has not presented any evidence to show that by failing to provide plaintiff with alternative methods to remove the cross key, BNSF failed to do what a reasonably prudent employer would do to make the work environment safe. ... BNSF’s motion for summary judgment on this ground is therefore granted.”
“In light of the evidence and FELA’s relaxed standard of causation, the Court finds sufficient evidence for a jury to determine that BNSF’s actions played at least some part in causing plaintiffs cumulative trauma. Summary judgment on this ground is therefore denied.”
“CMIC's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 28) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.”
“The Court accordingly determines that it is legally appropriate to enter an injunction preventing Coweta from continued or new violations of Wagoner-5's rights under 1926(b) as to the Disputed Customers.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- His sampled docket spans employment discrimination and retaliation suits, ERISA benefits disputes, Section 1983 civil-rights and prisoner cases, Section 2254/2241 habeas petitions, Social Security appeals, insurance and contract removals, trademark and consumer-credit disputes.
- Several sampled Social Security appeals (Yingst, McCarty) and general-civil dockets (Beavers, G&G Closed-Circuit Events) carried no retained docket entries, which is expected attrition on older, partially-digitized dockets rather than a gap specific to this judge.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 10 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 55 | 14 |
| Sep 2021 | 91 | 18 |
| Mar 2021 | 94 | 14 |
| Sep 2020 | 50 | 12 |
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 Northern District of Oklahoma, not for Judge Dowdell: 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 | 525 | 7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 112 | 5.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 401 | 7.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 9 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 525 | 7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 491 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 487 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 526 | 13.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 481 | 11.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 563 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 544 | 9.8 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 Dowdell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dowdell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dowdell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace