Bernard M. Jones II
How Judge II decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the 2026 immigration-detainee habeas wave he holds that 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) (discretionary detention with a bond hearing), not the mandatory-detention 1225(b)(2)(A), governs a long-residing noncitizen arrested inland; he follows the 7th Circuit's Castanon-Nava reading over the 5th Circuit's Buenrostro-Mendez and the majority of W.D./N.D. Okla. courts.
“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.”
Procedural preferences
Standard of review on R&R objections: an objection that merely reiterates arguments already made to the magistrate judge (or is silent on an issue) does NOT trigger de novo review -- he reviews only for clear error. Genuine cross-objections by both parties do trigger 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.”
Cautions
On consumer 'sign-in wrap' arbitration agreements he is demanding about conspicuous notice: a Terms-of-Use hyperlink in small light-grey font, spatially decoupled from the bright 'Continue' button and lacking the customary blue/underlined hyperlink cues, fails to form a valid agreement (motion to compel arbitration denied). [UNCOUNTED -- grounded only via a peer judge's order quoting Eakins at length + the Westlaw cite; the actual Eakins order is not on GovInfo/docket records.]
“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]”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Habeas petition N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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.”
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).
From the 2023 filing-year enumeration: heavily fast-terminating -- pro-se prisoner civil-rights (42:1983) and state habeas (28:2254) cases dismissed within days-to-weeks (often on magistrate screening), Paycom Payroll employment non-compete/TRO suits (terminate in ~2-3 weeks), plus qui tam, an interpleader, FDCPA consumer-credit, and insurance. Contested merits cases are the minority.