Charles Barnes Goodwin
How Judge Goodwin rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Goodwin
Charles Barnes Goodwin is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Goodwin received a commission on August 30, 2018.
Judge Goodwin's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Goodwin, 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
Trial
Trial counsel must be present at 9 a.m. and prepared to discuss expected legal or evidentiary issues.
“All trial counsel shall be present at 9:00 a.m. and prepared to discuss any significant legal or evidentiary issues that are anticipated to arise that day.”
Trial
Use the JERS system to present exhibits at trial unless the court orders otherwise.
“Unless otherwise ordered, the Court will expect counsel to present exhibits to witnesses and the jury electronically using the JERS system, with paper copies used only as backup.”
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 Goodwin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Dopp v. Honaker, he granted corrections officials summary judgment on qualified immunity after finding that the medical-treatment evidence did not establish the subjective element of an Eighth Amendment violation.
“The ODOC Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claims against them in their individual capacities.”
In a statutory immigration detention challenge, he ordered a bond hearing or release after finding the petitioner was detained under the wrong INA provision.
“Respondents are ORDERED to, within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, either provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or release Petitioner into the United States.”
Procedural preferences
In Conner v. State of Oklahoma, he dismissed the plaintiff's Title VII claims because allegations about age did not plausibly show sex discrimination and the pleading's assertions of discrimination were speculative and conclusory.
“The pleading's speculative, conclusory assertions of 'discrimination' and '[t]he real reason' for the termination are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.”
In Conner v. State of Oklahoma, after dismissing the federal employment claims for failure to state a claim, he declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Oklahoma-law claims because the record showed no other basis for federal jurisdiction.
“When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.”
In Tecun-Deleon v. Noem, he denied a no-notice TRO because the emergency motion omitted the written notice certification required by Rule 65(b)(1).
“Petitioner’s Emergency Motion does not provide the required certification”
Cautions
In Nfinitech Solutions v. RHA Health, he dismissed the LLC plaintiff's claim without prejudice after it failed to obtain new counsel or respond to a show-cause order, and directed entry of default on the counterclaim.
“Nfinitech 'has failed to . . . otherwise defend' itself against RHA's counterclaims, and Nfinitech is in default.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The CCA Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 110) is GRANTED as to Defendants Beard, Neau, and Paine. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.”
“The ODOC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 106) is otherwise GRANTED as to Defendants Honaker, McCurdy, May, Thompson, and Troutt on the basis of qualified immunity. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“Counterclaimant RHA Health, LLC, d/b/a RHA Health Group's Motion (Doc. No. 56) is GRANTED IN PART insofar as the Clerk of Court is directed to enter a default against Counterclaim Defendant Nfinitech Solutions, LLC on the relevant counterclaims pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Motion is otherwise DENIED AS MOOT.”
“The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 32) is ADOPTED as modified. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 27) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 33) is ADOPTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED.”
“Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 22) and Petitioner's Motion to Expand Record (Doc. No. 21) are likewise DENIED.”
“Defendant U.S. Department of Justice's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 6) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).”
“The Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Safiyatou Bullock...is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART...The Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Cynthia Bullock, Caleb Bullock, Levi Bullock, and Samuel Bullock (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 36) is GRANTED. A separate judgment shall be entered.”
“Accepting this representation, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.”
“Defendant Christopher James LaFever's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. No. 60) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 439 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 41 days (N = 7).
The sample includes both civil and criminal matters. Goodwin's work as a magistrate judge from 2013 through 2018 included consent Social Security appeals; since becoming a district judge, his docket has covered a broader merits caseload. The 2026 sample is heavily weighted toward alien-detainee habeas petitions referred to magistrate judges.
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 | 22 |
| 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 22 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 18 | 10 |
| Mar 2025 | 9 | 11 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 49 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 66 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 53 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 43 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 31 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 57 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 10 | 4 |
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 Goodwin: 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 Goodwin with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Goodwin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Goodwin's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace