John Anthony Jelderks
How Judge Jelderks rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jelderks
John Anthony Jelderks has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Oregon since 1991. He previously served on Oregon’s Seventh Judicial District bench and worked in county district attorney offices.
Judge Jelderks's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Jelderks, 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
Turn off mobile devices before entering the courtroom.
“Mobile devices must be turned off before entering the courtroom.”
Trial
Give advance notice if teleconferencing or courtroom video displays will be needed.
“Please provide advance notice when you require teleconferencing, intend to utilize the courtroom's video displays, or have other presentation technology questions.”
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 Jelderks decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When contract terms were imposed after employment began, Jelderks examined whether the agreement preserved the employee's statutory and procedural rights rather than treating arbitration as automatically enforceable.
“However, the courts must guard against attempts to coerce employees into involuntarily signing arbitration agreements”
At summary judgment, Jelderks left authorship questions for trial when the record did not resolve whether creative work was sole or joint.
“On this record, I am unable to determine, as a matter of law, whether Miles is the sole author or whether Miles and Fleming are joint authors.”
Procedural preferences
In administrative-review litigation, he tailored relief to the agency process by vacating the challenged decision while setting deadlines for a proposed study protocol and response.
“Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed study protocol to the agency within 45 days of the entry of this Order, and Defendants shall respond to that proposed protocol within 45 days of the receipt of the proposed protocol.”
Cautions
A party seeking to postpone summary judgment for discovery must identify specific facts the discovery is expected to uncover.
“To obtain a stay pending discovery, Qwest must show that discovery would uncover specific facts which would preclude summary judgment.”
In a First Step Act time-credit petition, he required evidence that the prisoner participated in qualifying programming before treating elapsed time since sentencing as earned credit.
“Petitioner makes no showing that he was actually engaged in any programming targeted to reduce his risk of recidivism that would justify an award of the 18 days of earned time credit he seeks.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“I affirm the decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISS this action with prejudice.”
“recommending Plaintiffs Motion for a Determination that there is an Unconscionable Contract Term in the Disability Insurance Policies issued by Defendant [44] be DENIED”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Plaintiffs Claims (#48) should be GRANTED.”
“The City of Wilsonville defendants’ motion for summary judgment (# 50) is granted.”
“The Clackamas County defendants’ motion for summary judgment (#48) is denied.”
“Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment (# 56) is denied.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (# 30) is denied in its entirety.”
“The motion for partial summary judgment brought by Stellar and Travelers (# 21) should be GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (# 19) should be GRANTED”
“defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment (# 28) should be DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs motion (# 13) for partial summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s cross-motion (# 19) for partial summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs motion for a partial summary judgment establishing that plaintiff has renewed its sublease and that the Port has breached its obligation to LNG by failing to take steps to renew the Master Lease should be granted.”
“Defendants’ Motion (# 11) to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is DENIED.”
“I recommend that plaintiffs motion (doc. 62) for partial summary judgment be DENIED.”
“Defendant’s motions (docs. 86 and 87) to strike certain of plaintiffs exhibits are DENIED as moot”
“Defendant’s motion (# 11) for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated in the opinion.”
“Plaintiffs cross-motion (# 19) for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (# 52) should be GRANTED as to plaintiffs claims of retaliation and failure to promote under state and federal statutes, as to plaintiffs hostile environment claim, as to plaintiffs wrongful termination claim under Oregon common law, and as to any claim for back pay after November, 2005. The motion should be DENIED as to the balance of plaintiffs claims.”
“Plaintiffs motion to strike (# 72) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s motions to strike (# 88 and # 104) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set out in Section I.B. above.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The 2024 sample consists largely of habeas petitions and includes two matters that remain pending. The three completed matters lasted about three to six months; those case durations measure the life of each case, not motion-decision time.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| 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 District of Oregon, not for Judge Jelderks: 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 | 1,647 | 9.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 300 | 5.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,316 | 10.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 9 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 22 | 33.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,647 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,633 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,472 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,620 | 13.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,501 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,536 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,596 | 11.6 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 Jelderks with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jelderks, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jelderks's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace