Jodi Marie Warmbrod Dishman
How Judge Dishman rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dishman
Jodi Warmbrod Dishman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Dishman received a commission on December 20, 2019.
Judge Dishman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Dishman, 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.
- Chamber Procedures for Civil Cases ↗
- Civil Cases: Guidelines for Protective Orders on Confidentiality, Sealing Documents, and Redactions ↗
- Eastern District of Oklahoma Plea Petition Form ↗
- Telephonic Appearance Procedures ↗
Key rules
Motions
Absent an emergency, seek extensions at least 48 hours before the deadline.
“Absent an emergency, any request for extension should be filed at least forty-eight hours before the scheduled deadline.”
Motions
The court strongly encourages good-faith pre-motion conferences to resolve issues without court intervention.
“The Court strongly encourages pre-motion conferences in a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue without Court intervention”
Motions
Expert-testimony challenges must be filed by the Daubert deadline and will be struck if filed as motions in limine.
“The Court will strike Daubert motions filed as motions in limine.”
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 Dishman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Petties, Dishman denied a Fair Housing Act dismissal motion after finding that the complaint alleged the project manager was also a tenant. She declined to convert the motion to summary judgment and did not consider the defendants' alternative factual explanations.
“The Court rejects this argument because Plaintiff clearly alleges the project manager was a tenant.”
Procedural preferences
In Horton v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Dishman dismissed the plaintiff’s claims without prejudice for lack of standing and subject-matter jurisdiction.
“The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Horton’s claims for lack of standing and subject-matter jurisdiction.”
When a fee-waiver applicant failed to supply financial information requested by the magistrate judge and did not object to the recommendation, she denied the application and set a deadline to pay the fee.
“The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. [Doc. No. 2].”
Cautions
She expects counsel to verify every cited authority before filing. When an interlocutory-revision motion included a citation that resolved to an unrelated case, she flagged the error and expressly reminded counsel of their Rule 11 obligation, without assuming how the error arose.
“It is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiffs and their counsel used AI to generate the citation. However, for purposes of future federal court filings, the Court cautions Plaintiffs’ counsel that they have an obligation to confirm the accuracy of the authority they are citing in filings before the Court.”
In Luginbyhl’s civil rights case, Dishman denied a fee-waiver application under the three-strikes rule because the plaintiff’s claims of imminent danger were only conclusory.
“Here, Plaintiff makes only conclusory allegations that he was in imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint, which are insufficient to satisfy the exception.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 25]. The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Horton's claims for lack of standing and subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court also dismisses without prejudice Mr. Horton's claims against Defendants Federal Personnel Records Center and National Guard Bureau.”
“For the reasons analyzed above, the Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.”
“Defendant James Dyer's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Expiration of the Statute of Limitations After Withdrawal from the Conspiracy [Doc. No. 73], Defendant Blaine Dyer's Motion to Dismiss for Expiration of the Statute of Limitations and Due Process [Doc. No. 95], and James Dyer's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Due Process and Speedy Trial Violation for Pre-Accusation Delay [Doc. No. 71] are DENIED.”
“the Court DENIES Defendant James Dyer's Motion to Dismiss the Counts Two through Eight and the Forfeiture Count of the Indictment for Vagueness [Doc. No. 74], which Defendant Blaine Dyer joins in, adopts, and incorporates on his behalf [Doc. No. 99]. Further, the Court DENIES in part and RESERVES in part Defendant James Dyer's Motion to Dismiss Counts Two through Eight of the Indictment for Defectiveness Due to Multiplicity [Doc. No. 66]”
“the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Bill of Particulars [Doc. Nos. 58 and 97]”
“For these reasons, and based on the parties' submissions and relevant law, the Court DENIES Defendant James Dyer's Motion to Strike and Challenge Jury Array, Jury Panel(s), and Dismiss Indictment [Doc. No. 1] for Improper Selection of Grand and Petit Jurors [Doc. No. 61], which Defendant Blaine Dyer joins in, adopts, and incorporates on his behalf [Doc. No. 99], and as supplemented at [Doc. Nos. 153 and 156].”
“The Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII claims based upon gender and ADEA claims for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies, and Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims. The Court also grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Long. The Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Rule 8. The Court also denies, under Rule 12(b)(6), Defendants' requests to dismiss Plaintiff's failure to accommodate claim and Plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims for failure to plead facts establishing adverse employment action.”
“For the reasons outlined above, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Title VII claims against Wedman with prejudice. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's claim for Title VII discrimination based upon gender, sex, or sexual orientation without prejudice but without leave to amend. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Title VII discrimination claim based upon race against Sodexo, Title VII retaliation claim against Sodexo, and defamation claim against Defendants without prejudice.”
“Therefore, the Court concludes that a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is inappropriate in this case. ... the Court rejects Young and Stewart's arguments and denies the Motion. [Doc. No. 75].”
“The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Oklahoma State Department of Health [Doc. No. 7]. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff Stephanie Greene's claims for Title VII hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation, and FMLA interference (Counts I, II, III, and V). Only Plaintiff's claim for FMLA retaliation (Count IV) survives the Motion.”
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the City's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's negligence claim against it. [Doc. No. 5]. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's negligence claim against the City.”
“For these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Guardian Alliance Technologies, Inc.'s Partial Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted [Doc. No. 112].”
“For the reasons outlined above, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] and dismisses Plaintiffs' complaint [Doc. No. 1-1] without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 348 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 637 days (N = 2).
The sample mixes civil and criminal matters. Commercial, contract, and personal-injury cases predominate and frequently settle before a merits ruling.
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 Dishman: 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 Dishman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dishman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dishman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace