Suzanne Mitchell
How Judge Mitchell rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mitchell
Suzanne Mitchell serves as a United States magistrate judge for the Western District of Oklahoma. Her chambers are in Oklahoma City at the William J. Holloway Jr. United States Courthouse.
Judge Mitchell's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Mitchell, 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 ↗
- Protective Orders; Filing of Documents Under Seal ↗
- Settlement Conferences ↗
- Scheduling Order ↗
- Waiver of Appearance at Arraignment ↗
Key rules
Trial
Notify opposing counsel at least one week before trial of planned demonstrative exhibits for opening statements.
“If you intend to use demonstrative exhibits in opening statements, inform opposing counsel at least one week before trial regarding this intent”
Trial
Stand at the podium when questioning witnesses, making statements, and arguing, subject to the stated disability exception.
“Stand at the podium when you examine witnesses, make statements and present argument.”
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 Mitchell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Taylor v. Comanche County Facilities Authority, Mitchell recommended summary judgment on a jail failure-to-protect claim against supervisor Hobbs in his individual capacity for lack of an affirmative link to the assault. The district judge agreed on that claim but rejected summary judgment on the separate municipal-liability claim against the county facilities authority.
“Judge Mitchell concluded that Defendant Hobbs was entitled to summary judgment on the failure-to-protect claim raised against him in his individual capacity as a supervisor at CCDC because Plaintiff had failed to show an 'affirmative link' between the attack and any action or inaction of Defendant Hobbs.”
In Miller v. Nunn, Mitchell recommended dismissing a Section 2254 petition filed more than a decade after the limitations period expired because neither statutory nor equitable tolling applied. The district judge adopted that recommendation without reaching the merits.
“United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell agrees and recommends dismissal after finding that the habeas petition was filed over decade after the applicable statute of limitations had expired and that neither statutory nor equitable tolling applied.”
Procedural preferences
In Atwood v. United States, Mitchell recommended giving the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to respond with evidence after the United States relied on material outside the pleadings to seek dismissal of the FTCA claims. The district judge adopted her recommendation to leave those claims pending while the factual record developed.
“Plaintiff should be afforded ‘a reasonable opportunity to respond with evidentiary materials pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).’”
In Curry v. Goldey, Mitchell recommended allowing a federal prisoner’s sentence-calculation claim to proceed under Section 2241 while dismissing his collateral attack on the conviction and his conditions-of-confinement damages claims as outside habeas relief.
“However, she concluded that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed with his sentence calculation claims in Ground Four.”
In Madzhnunov v. Gantt, Mitchell recommended immediate release after immigration authorities revoked conditional release without the required process or a changed-circumstances determination. She also recommended notice and a neutral hearing before any renewed detention.
“For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court grant Petitioner’s habeas petition and order his immediate release.”
In Suresh KC v. Figueroa, Mitchell concluded that Section 1226(a) governed the petitioner’s detention and recommended an individualized bond hearing within seven days or release, instead of the immediate release he sought.
“The Court should thus grant the petition in part and order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within seven days, or otherwise release Petitioner.”
For an emergency request for a temporary restraining order without notice, she required a written certification of efforts to notify the opposing parties under Rule 65(b). Filing a notice at the same time as the motion did not satisfy that requirement.
“Petitioner has not complied with those requirements here as he has not submitted to the Court any certification of efforts made to give notice to Respondents before filing the motion.”
Cautions
In Taylor v. Comanche County Facilities Authority, Mitchell recommended summary judgment for all defendants on a jail failure-to-protect claim. On de novo review, the district judge adopted her recommendation as to supervisor Hobbs and punitive damages but rejected it as to the county facilities authority’s municipal liability.
“the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 65) is ADOPTED IN PART and DECLINED IN PART.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants United States and BOP's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... the Bivens claim against the United States and the BOP, as well as the FTCA claims against BOP and any individual Defendants, should be dismissed with prejudice ... the FTCA claims against the United States, in addition to the Bivens claims against Defendants Zeavin and Russell in their individual capacities, should not be dismissed.”
“Defendants Zeavin and Russell's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) is DENIED.”
“Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED, the claims asserted in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Dkt. 1) are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1) as untimely filed”
“the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 65) is ADOPTED IN PART and DECLINED IN PART ... (1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 54) is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff Jeffrey Allen Taylor's failure-to-protect claim raised against Defendant William Hobbs in his individual capacity and with respect to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages; and (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to the failure-to-protect claim raised against Defendant Comanche County Facilities Authority.”
“the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motions for Summary Judgment [Doc. Nos. 50 and 51] are granted in favor of Defendants Gina Hutchison and Payne County Sheriff's Office, respectively. The Court further grants summary judgment in favor of Defendant Ryan Lassley.”
“the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 18] and DISMISSES Grounds One, Two, and Three without prejudice.”
“Judge Mitchell's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9] is ADOPTED in part. Petitioner's Motion for Fast and Speedy Trial [Doc. No. 8] is DENIED.”
“The Petition is GRANTED to the extent it requests habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”
“Defendant The Geo Group, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 10] is DENIED.”
“DENIES Robertson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2)”
“AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner”
“considered as a request for summary judgment, is GRANTED.”
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 | 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 | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 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 Mitchell: 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 Mitchell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mitchell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mitchell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace