Scott Lawrence Palk
How Judge Palk rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Palk
Scott Lawrence Palk is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Palk received a commission on October 31, 2017.
Judge Palk's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Palk, 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.
- General Rules ↗
- Guidelines for Requesting Extensions of Scheduling Order Deadlines ↗
- AI Guidelines ↗
- Guidelines for Confidentiality Orders ↗
Key rules
Filing
A filing prepared with generative AI must disclose the use and identify the specific tool in the filed document.
“must disclose in the document that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used.”
Motions
Requests to extend scheduling deadlines should describe completed and remaining discovery.
“Requests should address the specific efforts undertaken to date to move the case forward, including the discovery conducted and the discovery which remains.”
Motions
Do not rely on a generalized claim of ongoing settlement talks to justify a scheduling extension.
“Generalized assertions or conclusory statements that ‘settlement negotiations are underway’ or ‘ongoing’ will not suffice.”
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 Palk decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Applies the claim-splitting / claim-preclusion doctrine to dismiss a later-filed duplicate suit: dismissal is warranted where the two actions share identity of parties and identity of cause of action, and all claims arising from the same employment relationship are the same transaction.
“A plaintiff has an 'obligation to bring all related claims together in the same action [] under the common law rule of claim preclusion prohibiting the splitting of actions.'”
In Carpenter’s detainee medical-care case, Palk denied two dismissal motions after finding that the pleaded conduct plausibly showed deliberate indifference rather than merely negligent treatment.
“alleged facts to show that Defendants Meraz and Garza’s conduct satisfies the subjective component of a claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs.”
Procedural preferences
In McClain v. Canadian County, Palk addressed dismissal motions before consolidation because the plaintiffs’ proposed amendment had not been filed. After dismissing the duplicate federal claims, he declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and denied consolidation as moot.
“The Court cannot rule on an 'anticipated' motion that has not yet been filed. Accordingly, the Court addresses the dismissal motions first before addressing the Motion to Consolidate.”
In a case involving minors, Palk struck an unredacted second amended complaint and directed the plaintiff to file a redacted version within fourteen days.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 6] is STRICKEN. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order, or June 15, 2026. Exhibits attached to the amended complaint must have redactions of all minor children’s names.”
Cautions
In Burchett v. Laser Light Skin Clinic, Palk denied an extension motion without prejudice to a new filing complying with LCvR 7.1(h) and addressing its effect on other deadlines.
“ORDER denying 36 Motion for Extension of Dispositive Motion Deadline without prejudice to refiling a motion which complies with LCvR7.1(h) and factors in the impact on other deadlines.”
In Hastings v. Jackson Mechanical Service, Palk rejected an FMLA retaliation theory tied to leave eighteen months before termination while allowing a theory tied to leave days before termination to proceed.
“eighteen (18) months is far too detached.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED in part, and the Motion to Consolidate is DENIED. ... The federal claims in this action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the Motion to Consolidate [Doc. No. 16] is DENIED as moot.”
“76 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss, 77 SBA's Motion to Dismiss, and 97 HOA's Motion to Dismiss are DENIED as MOOT.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in each of the eleven cases under consideration, the motion to remand is GRANTED.”
“Upon review and for the reasons that follow, the Motion is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 4] is GRANTED.”
“Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 8] and Motion to Enforce [Doc. No. 9] are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [Doc. No. 52] is DISMISSED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(l)(A) [Doc. No. 38] is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth herein.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 11] is ADOPTED and the Petition [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED IN PART as follows: 1. Count I of the Petition is GRANTED and Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) business days of this Order, or otherwise release Petitioner if he has not received a lawful bond hearing within that period.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 6] is DENIED as MOOT.”
“Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Request for Stay of Proceedings with Brief in Support [Doc. No. 11] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application to Confirm Arbitration Award and Brief in Support is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The arbitration award [Doc. No. 29-1], which is incorporated herein by reference, is confirmed as against Defendants ASC Group, LLC and Joseph Aaron Rosenthal.”
“The Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss Or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings, and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 20] is GRANTED, as set forth above. Plaintiff's claims against CVS shall proceed to arbitration.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 2], Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 3], and re-urged Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] are DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 475 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 131 days (N = 1).
The sample mixes civil and criminal matters, including several long-running sealed False Claims Act cases and a substantial criminal caseload.
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 | 3 |
| 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 6 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 12 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 26 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 57 | 9 |
| Sep 2023 | 65 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 55 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 44 | 10 |
| Mar 2022 | 81 | 10 |
| Sep 2021 | 48 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 24 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 18 | 6 |
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 Palk: 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 Palk with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Palk, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Palk's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace