Robin J. Cauthron
How Judge Cauthron rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Cauthron no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Cauthron
Robin J. Cauthron served on the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma after receiving her commission on March 25, 1991. She assumed senior status on July 14, 2015. A May 2023 court order documented her transition to inactive senior status.
How Judge Cauthron decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a defense MSJ asserting qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both a constitutional violation and a clearly established right; failing either prong, the officer prevails. Where there is no underlying constitutional violation, derivative Monell (failure-to-train/discipline) and supervisory-liability claims fail with it.
“Even if this Court were to entertain an argument that there is a material dispute of fact ... Plaintiff would fail on the second qualified immunity prong because there was no ‘clearly established’ right at the time of Defendant Galyon's conduct.”
In Osborne, a prominent direction on the front of a debt-collection letter to read the disclosures on its reverse side satisfied the validation-notice requirement.
“this Court finds that the bold-face and conspicuous notice directing Plaintiff to view the validation language on the back of the same letter meets the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g and satisfies the least-sophisticated-consumer standard.”
Procedural preferences
First Amendment public-employee speech is analyzed under the Tenth Circuit's five-step Garcetti/Pickering framework; speech made pursuant to official duties is unprotected even when the employee goes outside the normal chain of command. The first three steps are for the court.
“That she elected to go outside the chain of command and report to the OSBI rather than Defendant Jones, does not alter the fact that her speech was made within the scope of her duties. Thus, her speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”
After the defendant amended its summary judgment motion, the court resolved the amended request and struck the earlier version as moot.
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 32) is stricken as MOOT.”
Cautions
In Hardy v. United States, Cauthron dismissed an FTCA claim because the proper agency did not receive it within the two-year period; mailing it before the deadline did not satisfy presentment.
“Rather, by defining ‘presented’ as meaning ‘received,’ the regulation sets out a bright line rule for the expiration of the limitations period.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Paul Galyon (Dkt. No. 163) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Galyon (Dkt. No. 164) is DENIED.”
“Defendant City's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 134) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant William Citty's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 135) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Kay County Justice Facilities Authority's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 59) and Defendant Don Jones, in His Individual Capacity and in His Official Capacity as Director of the Kay County Justice Facilities' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 60) are GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. Because no amendment can cure the defect, this dismissal is an adjudication on the merits and a separate judgment will issue.”
“This Temporary Restraining Order shall remain in effect for 10 days following the date and time Plaintiffs posts security for this Temporary Restraining Order unless, within that time, an order is entered extending or vacating the Temporary Restraining Order.”
“Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. As no amendment could revive Plaintiffs claim, the dismissal is with prejudice and a judgment will therefore enter.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 21) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs claim of intentional infliction of emotional distressed is dismissed, while her Title VII claims remain.”
“Hetronic International, Inc.’s and Methode Electronics, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (Doc. No. 38) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant has sufficiently stated a claim for relief in Counterclaim I. Counterclaims II, III, IV, and V are dismissed. If Defendant wishes to amend, that pleading must be filed within 20 days of the date of this Order.”
“Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 71) is herein GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 37) is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 32) is stricken as MOOT.”
“Defendant Health Care Service Corporation's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 22) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 20) is GRANTED.”
“the Court now GRANTS both Defendants’ Motions in FULL.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 84 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 1 days (N = 2).
The reduced senior-judge sample consists mostly of pro se prisoner and habeas matters, along with several removed diversity cases.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Cauthron was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2023.
| 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 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 6 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Cauthron no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.