David Lynn Russell
How Judge Russell rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Russell
David Lynn Russell is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Russell was commissioned to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on December 17, 1981 and reassigned to this court on December 17, 1981. Judge Russell assumed senior status on July 7, 2013.
Judge Russell's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Russell, 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
Mark exhibits before trial rather than during court time.
“Court time may not be used for marking exhibits. This must be done in advance of the court session.”
Trial
Opening statements should summarize facts without arguing law and ordinarily are limited to 15 minutes per side.
“Unless the case is unusually complex, each party will be limited to 15 minutes.”
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 Russell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Clothier's insurance dispute, Russell dismissed the bad-faith claim because the amended complaint recited possible insurer misconduct without facts tying it to the parties' relationship.
“the paragraphs contain mere formulaic recitals of various manners in which an insurer may commit bad faith, without any specific factual allegations arising from this particular relationship.”
In Blue Star Land Services v. Coleman, Russell dismissed the trade-secret claims against Johnson because the complaint relied on her association with other defendants rather than facts showing her own misappropriation.
“Liability by association is not enough, nor is ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.’”
In Sims's detainee-medical-care case, Russell found evidence of chronic staffing and inmate-monitoring problems sufficient to let claims against the jail authority and administrator proceed, while granting summary judgment to individual detention officers.
“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable juror could conclude that the jail had chronic, widespread, and grossly deficient practices regarding the monitoring of inmates.”
In United States ex rel. Poisson v. Red River Service, Russell held that the relator's False Claims Act allegations against Red River and Gus Bryant narrowly met the pleading standard, while the claims against other defendants did not.
“meet these standards, though barely so.”
In Singh v. De Anda-Ybarra, Russell held that section 1226(a) governed the detention of a petitioner who had entered the country more than two years earlier, and ordered a prompt bond hearing.
“His detention is controlled by § 1226(a) and he is entitled to a prompt bond hearing.”
Procedural preferences
In Clothier v. Health Care Service Corporation, Russell denied reconsideration of an interlocutory dismissal of bad-faith and fraud claims. He found no clear error or manifest injustice after reviewing the complaint and the Rule 12(b)(6) standard applied in the earlier order.
“The Court thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint, her arguments and the relevant law and concluded that the operative pleading failed to state a claim for bad faith. The Court finds no basis for reversing its prior decision.”
In the Verline and Verlinde insurance-removal case, Russell denied State Farm's request for jurisdictional discovery because the proposed inquiries concerned merits and credibility rather than the removal question. He remanded the case.
“State Farm’s proposed discovery goes towards merits-based and credibility issues that are not appropriate at this stage in the proceeding.”
In Sac and Fox Nation v. Norton, Russell held that the tribe's statutory route to judicial review did not require final agency action before its challenge to the Secretary's conduct could proceed.
“Thus, final agency action is not required in this instance.”
Cautions
In Nation v. Piedmont Independent School District, Russell granted the district summary judgment on a municipal-liability claim because the evidence did not establish that the student's constitutional rights were violated after the district received notice of the alleged abuse.
“The Court finds an absence of admissible evidence from which a jury could find that J.N.’s constitutional rights were violated after the District received notice of alleged abuse, premised largely on the murky timeline of events.”
In Smith v. Allied Steel Construction, Russell denied the employer summary judgment on an ADA claim because evidence left a factual dispute about the essential functions of the plaintiff's ironworker-foreman job.
“The Court finds that genuine issues of material fact remain for resolution at trial with regard to the first part of the analysis of whether Plaintiff was qualified for his role as ironworker foreman, that is could he perform the essential functions of his job, and what were those essential functions.”
On a motion to dismiss, Russell confines the analysis to the operative pleading; factual assertions introduced only in the response cannot repair an otherwise conclusory complaint.
“When ruling on a motion to dismiss, however, the Court must only address whether the Petition contains enough ‘facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
In Rajpal Singh v. Gantt, Russell denied further habeas relief after the petitioner had received a § 1226(a) bond hearing and did not establish that the hearing violated due process.
“But given that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), has received the bond hearing he is entitled to under § 1226(a), and the Court cannot conclude that his bond hearing violated his due process rights, the Court sees no basis on which it can grant him further relief.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Plaintiff's bad faith claim. ... the Court finds these allegations too conclusory to meet Plaintiff's pleading burden. ... Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.”
“In short, the Court finds that it made no error in its Order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, her Motion to Reconsider is hereby DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part with respect to all claims against Defendant Johnson and DENIED with respect to all claims against Defendants Coleman, Morris, and Rock Creek.”
“Defendant District's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claim and as to the negligent investigation claim. The motion is denied as to the respondeat superior claim premised on Ms. Morris's actions and granted as to the claims under the state constitution.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant Morris's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“As set out above, the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants Williams [Doc. No. 119]; OCCJA [Doc. No. 111], and Okongor [Doc. No. 129] are denied.”
“The motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants BOCC [Doc. No. 118], Kallos [Doc. No. 115], Anderson [Doc. No. 113], Turn Key [Doc. No. 122], Cooper [Doc. No. 127], Irvin [Doc. No. 126], and Misty Williams [Doc. No. 128] are granted.”
“The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Eastman, Hallock, Horn, and Merriott [Doc. No. 124] is denied as moot and these defendants are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).”
“Last, in accordance with the Stipulation of Dismissal [Doc. No. 142] dismissing the claims against Defendants Carter, Mulanax, Harvey, Anderson-Depee, and Dean without prejudice, the motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 117] filed by these defendants is denied as moot.”
“Accordingly, Defendant Pepper’s Partial Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED—to the extent Plaintiff asserts claims against Pepper in his official capacity, such claims are DISMISSED.”
“Defendant City’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 9] is DENIED.”
“The Petition is therefore GRANTED in part and Respondents are directed to provide Petitioner with a prompt, individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).”
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 12] is GRANTED and State Farm’s Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery [Doc. No. 15] is DENIED.”
“the Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim is subject to dismissal and the School District's motion is GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. If, however, Plaintiffs can amend the Petition to state a substantive due process claim consistent with this Order, Plaintiffs are granted leave to do so within 14 days of the date of this order.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 19] is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 19-1] is deemed filed instanter;”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 12], treated as directed to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the individual Plaintiffs claims under their supplemental cancer policy relating to ‘actual charges’ and/or ‘actual expenses’ [Doc. No. 40] is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff Donald Stangl’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on the specific claims related to ‘actual expenses’ [Doc. No. 43] is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 847 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 24 days (N = 1).
The sample reflects a high-volume general civil and criminal docket, including employment-discrimination and civil-rights suits, diversity personal-injury and insurance matters, commercial and trade-secret disputes, and pro se habeas and § 2255 petitions, many resolved through adopted magistrate recommendations.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 10 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 16 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Russell: 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 Russell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Russell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Russell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace