Sara E. Hill
How Judge Hill rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hill
Sara Elizabeth Hill is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Hill received a commission on January 2, 2024.
Judge Hill's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hill, 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
Filing
Submit a physical courtesy copy for filings longer than 50 pages, including exhibits.
“For all filings longer than 50 pages (inclusive of all exhibits), a physical courtesy copy must be submitted to the Court.”
Filing
Use the court’s template for proposed orders.
“The Court requires all proposed orders to be based on the template order posted on the Court’s website.”
Motions
Combine motions in limine in one filing and attach any targeted proposed trial exhibit.
“Motions in limine must be combined in one filing. If a motion in limine is directed at a proposed trial exhibit, the proposed trial exhibit shall be filed as an exhibit to the motion in limine.”
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 Hill decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Frazier, she treated the defendants’ regulated utility status as relevant to whether the consumer-protection claims could proceed and took judicial notice of how their services were delivered.
“The Court takes judicial notice that PSO, the City of Tulsa, and ONG provide services through pipe, wire, or other connected facilities.”
In Wyatt, she compelled arbitration after finding a valid employment agreement and rejecting the worker’s claimed transportation-worker exemption.
“the Parties entered into a valid, binding, and enforceable arbitration”
Procedural preferences
In Jones v. Golden, she identified the operative complaint among a pro se litigant’s unclear filings before deciding the judicial defendants’ dismissal motion.
“Given Plaintiff's myriad unclear filings, I must first determine which filing or filings constitute the complaint that the Judicial Defendants' motion to dismiss applies to.”
In Ribner, she excluded service agreements attached to dismissal briefs because the complaint did not specifically reference them, leaving the Rule 12(b)(6) motion unconverted.
“The Court will exclude the agreements in its consideration of the motion to dismiss.”
In Hargraves, she remanded a removed wrongful-death case after finding that the defendants had not established fraudulent joinder of the non-diverse party. The remand arose from the court’s review of removal, without a party motion.
“Defendants have not sufficiently established fraudulent joinder.”
Cautions
In an individual officer suit, service on the city clerk did not establish service on the officer because the clerk had no shown authority to receive process for that person.
“there is no indication that the City Clerk is authorized by appointment or by law to accept service of process on behalf of Defendant.”
In one traffic-stop suppression ruling, the judge required facts tying apparently ordinary travel behavior to suspected crime. She separately treated an officer’s warrantless query of a month of automated license plate location history as a Fourth Amendment search.
“That search was not supported by probable cause, and it was done without a warrant in violation of Kyle’s Fourth Amendment rights.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated herein, the Judicial Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 16] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint [ECF No. 1] is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendants' motions to dismiss [ECF Nos. 14, 18, 39] are granted. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Apple's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED and the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.”
“As a result of this Order, Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 2] and Motion for Expedited Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 13] are DENIED as moot.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“The government’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 4] is GRANTED and the complaint [ECF No. 2-1] is DISMISSED without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”
“motion to remand [ECF No. 11] is granted in part and denied in part.”
“the pending motions [ECF Nos. 17, 24, 38] are MOOT.”
“Suppress [ECF No. 47] is GRANTED for the reasons explained above.”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 47] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion in limine [ECF No. 48] and Defendant’s motion in limine [ECF No. 49] are MOOT.”
“Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration [ECF No. 16] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue [ECF No. 22] is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 15] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
The court remanded a removed wrongful-death suit after finding that the removing defendants had not shown fraudulent joinder of a non-diverse party. The court addressed the notice of removal on its own review; no party remand motion was before it.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Her reviewed cases since taking the bench in January 2024 include reassigned matters and span Section 1983 civil-rights suits, prisoner petitions, employment and consumer-protection claims, insurance and contract disputes, and Social Security appeals.
- Several sampled pro se civil filings ended at screening, on a dismissal motion, or for failure to prosecute.
- This partial sample does not describe her entire caseload.
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 | 134 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 13 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 134 | 13 |
| Sep 2025 | 104 | 12 |
| Mar 2025 | 127 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 124 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 7 |
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 Hill: 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 Hill with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hill, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hill's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace