Amanda L. Maxfield
How Judge Maxfield rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Maxfield
Amanda L. Maxfield serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, with chambers in Oklahoma City. She began her judicial service in October 2020 after working as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. She earned her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Oklahoma.
Judge Maxfield's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Maxfield, 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
Put legal authority in the body of a brief rather than using footnotes solely for citations.
“Practitioners shall not use footnotes solely for the purpose of citing legal authority.”
Filing
All case citations, statutes, and other legal authorities must appear in the main text.
“All case citations, statutes, and other legal authorities must appear in the main body of the text.”
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 Maxfield decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Maldonado Castillo, the district judge adopted her Rule 12(b)(6) recommendation after she assessed the complaint alone and disregarded new factual assertions raised only in later responses.
“the magistrate judge correctly stated that '[t]he court's function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the plaintiff's complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim' ... the magistrate judge properly 'ignored any new factual assertions Plaintiff include[d] in his own motions and his responses to the Defendants' motions.'”
In Combs, she recommended dismissal under Younger while parallel state post-conviction proceedings remained pending; the district judge adopted that recommendation and treated the respondent’s dismissal motion as moot.
“United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield Green ... recommends that Petitioner Franklin Savoy Combs's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 be dismissed under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), that Respondent's motion to dismiss be denied as moot”
In Rabadanov, she recommended an individualized bond hearing within seven days or release for an immigration detainee governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
“The undersigned recommends that the Court order Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge within 7 days of the judgment in this matter, or else release him from custody.”
In Khaddaj, she recommended immediate release after finding officials had not shown compliance with the regulations governing revocation of a supervised release order. The district judge adopted the habeas remedy in part.
“The undersigned finds that Respondents have failed to show that ICE abided by its own regulations in revoking Petitioner’s OOS, making the revocation unlawful.”
Procedural preferences
In Maldonado Castillo, she resolved multiple defendant motions in one recommendation, separating merits motions from a proposed dismissal of unserved defendants and collateral requests.
“she recommended the following motions be granted ... [eight defendant motions] ... The magistrate judge further recommended dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Toledo, Easter, and Powers, and denying the following motions: Defendant Stewart's Motion for Sanctions ... Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment”
In an immigration-detention habeas case, Green recommended a bond hearing under § 1226(a) and advised leaving the remaining claims undecided unless the ordered hearing or release did not occur.
“If the Court grants Petitioner’s requested relief for a bond re-determination hearing under § 1226(a), the undersigned recommends that the Court follow an approach of other district courts and decline to decide the merits of the remaining claims, and allow Petitioner to renew them if Respondents do not provide him with a bond hearing or release him within the ordered time.”
In James, she recommended transfer of a prison-discipline habeas petition to the current confinement district after a limited review found the nonreceipt allegation might support relief. The district judge accepted the transfer recommendation.
“transfer instead of dismissal is in the interest of justice.”
In Nwokolo, she construed the government’s notice requesting jurisdictional dismissal as a motion and recommended dismissal because the petitioner was confined outside the district when he filed.
“Respondents’ request in the Notice ‘that the Court dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction,’ (Doc. 12, at 1), is properly construed as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”
Cautions
When a party objects to one of her recommendations, the district judge conducts de novo review of the challenged portions; in Maldonado Castillo, that review resulted in adoption of her omnibus recommendation in full.
“the Court, having conducted a de novo review, finds that Plaintiff's objection should be overruled, and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 68] in its entirety.”
In Zhakhonov, the district judge rejected her recommendation to deny habeas relief after de novo review and granted a bond hearing or release. A magistrate recommendation did not become the final disposition.
“Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the Report and Recommendation and the Petition is GRANTED IN PART.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Stewart's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Gourley's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 22] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Callaway's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 24] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Bondurant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 26] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Palomar's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 37] is GRANTED; ... Defendant OCCJA's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 39] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Turn Key's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 41] is GRANTED; ... Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant CJ's Bail Bonds' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 16] is GRANTED;”
“the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 19] for the reasons stated therein and DISMISSES this action without prejudice consistent with Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ... The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.”
“All other pending motions [Doc. Nos. 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18] are DENIED as moot.”
During 28 U.S.C. 1915 screening, Green granted the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed him to pay an $18 initial partial filing fee. When he did not pay or show cause, her May 31, 2022 report and recommendation proposed dismissal without prejudice to refiling. District Judge Stephen P. Friot adopted the unobjected recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice. This administrative screening disposition did not resolve an adversarial party motion.
“the undersigned recommends that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s Second Amended Motion for Default Judgment by Plaintiff As Against Defendant USA Aircraft Brokers, Inc., Only (Doc. 75) and DISMISS this action without prejudice as to Defendant USA Aircraft Brokers, Inc.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the court DENY Plaintiff’s Applications for Leave to Proceed IFP (Doc. 1, 7).”
“the undersigned recommends that the court deny Petitioner’s Application for Leave to Proceed IFP (Doc. 2).”
With no adversary motion pending, Green recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after a pro se civil-rights plaintiff failed to pay the initial partial filing fee despite an extension. She wrote: "the undersigned recommends that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice to the re-filing for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the initial partial filing fee."
With no adversary motion pending, Green recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after a Section 2241 petitioner failed to pay the filing fee or submit a pauper application despite extensions. She wrote: "For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS this case without prejudice to the re-filing."
With no adversary motion pending, Green recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after a pro se civil-rights plaintiff failed to cure pauper-application deficiencies. She wrote: "the undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order (Doc. 5) warrants a recommendation that the Court DISMISS this action without prejudice to the re-filing."
“For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned recommends that the Petition (Doc. 1) be GRANTED in part. The undersigned recommends that the Court order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days or otherwise release Petitioner if he has not received a lawful bond hearing within that period.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned recommends that the Petition (Doc. 1) be GRANTED in part. The undersigned recommends that the Court order Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge within 7 days of the judgment in this matter, or else release him from custody.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned recommends that the Petition (Doc. 1) be GRANTED in part. The undersigned recommends that the Court order Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge within 7 days of the judgment in this matter, or else release him from custody.”
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, not for Judge Maxfield: 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 | 1,011 | 6.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 361 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 461 | 6.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 185 | 12.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,011 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,062 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 863 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 932 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 958 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 944 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,040 | 8.5 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 Maxfield with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Maxfield, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Maxfield's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace