Bernard M. Jones II
How Judge Jones rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jones
Bernard M. Jones is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Jones received a commission on December 31, 2019.
Judge Jones's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Jones, 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
Contacting chambers
Requests and case notifications must be filed in writing; a phone call is insufficient.
“All requests made of the Court, or notifications regarding a case, shall be made in writing and filed in the proper manner. Telephone communication will not suffice.”
Motions
Email the courtroom deputy when a motion has been pending for more than 90 days after full briefing.
“I require the moving party to email my Courtroom Deputy D. Wayne Lee at [email protected] if any motion has been pending for more than ninety (90) days after it is fully briefed.”
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 Jones decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Coreas, he read the mandatory-detention provision as applying to noncitizens actively seeking admission and granted relief to a person arrested after residing inland.
“based on 1225(b)(2)(A)'s plain language, the Court concludes that the section only applies when a noncitizen 'applicant for admission' is actively 'seeking admission' into the United States.”
In Todyrenchuk, he ordered a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within seven business days or release after adopting the recommendation in part.
“Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) within seven business days or otherwise release Petitioner if he has not received the hearing within that period.”
In Pu Barrera, he applied intervening appellate authority to find the lack of a bond hearing violated § 1226(a), then ordered a hearing within five business days or release.
“the Court concurs with Judge Stephen’s finding that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing and Respondents’ failure to provide one violates § 1226(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
Procedural preferences
In Singh, he explained that an objection repeating arguments previously presented to a magistrate judge does not require de novo review.
“An objection that merely reiterates arguments previously presented to the magistrate judge, or that expresses general disagreement with the recommendation, is insufficient to require de novo review.”
In Lopez Macias, he dismissed a detention petition as moot after a voluntary-departure order became administratively final while the case was pending.
“Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED as MOOT.”
Cautions
In Eakins v. Whaleco, Jones denied a motion to compel arbitration after finding that the app’s sign-in process did not give reasonably conspicuous notice of its terms.
“the App failed to provide reasonably conspicuous notice that Plaintiff was agreeing to Defendant's terms of use when creating her account. ... [Eakins v. Whaleco Inc., 2024 WL 1190766, *3, quoted in Smith v. Whaleco, CIV-23-559-D]”
In Zhakhonov, he rejected a recommendation to deny detention relief after de novo review and granted a bond hearing or release; the magistrate recommendation was not the final judgment.
“the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 12] on de novo review and GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in so far as it finds Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 15] on de novo review and GRANTS Petitioner's Petition to the extent it alleges Petitioner's lack of bond hearing violates federal law.”
“the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 11] is ADOPTED and Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED in so far as it finds Respondents violated the INA.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration [Doc. No. 33] is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 15] and GRANTS Respondent's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 13].”
“Petitioner has failed to make either showing and the Court denies the COA.”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS IN PART and DECLINES TO ADOPT IN PART the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 12]. In the interests of justice, Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days within which to file a second amended petition raising only the exhausted due process claim providing that he lacked an understanding of the nature and consequences of his state court plea.”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 16] and DENIES Petitioner's Petition in its entirety.”
“Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as the Court concludes he has not made ‘a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 6] and TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Third Supplemental Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 80] and DENIES Plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 78].”
“Because Plaintiff-Intervenor lacks standing to pursue the class claims asserted here, the Court finds that the Certification Motion [62] shall be denied and the class claims will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“But until then, for the reasons set forth herein, the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 4] is GRANTED. Oklahoma is hereby ENJOINED from enforcing H.B. 4156 pending further proceedings.”
“ORDER ~ Denying 22, 24 Motions for leave to file briefs as amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute.”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 23] and DENIES Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 39 days (N = 17).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 196 days (N = 3).
The 2023 sample includes many quickly resolved pro se prisoner civil-rights and state-habeas cases, often ending after judicial screening, along with employment noncompete and temporary-restraint disputes, False Claims Act, interpleader, consumer-credit, and insurance matters. Contested merits cases are a minority of the sample.
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 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 3 |
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 United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, not for Judge Jones: 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 Jones with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jones, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jones's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace