Michael J. McShane

How Judge McShane rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Position
District judge
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
May 30, 2013
ABA rating
Qualified (Majority) / Well Qualified (Minority)
Education
Gonzaga University (B.A., cum laude, 1983); Lewis & Clark College, Northwestern School of Law (J.D., 1988)
Signed orders read
35

About Judge McShane

Michael Jerome McShane is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge McShane received a commission on May 30, 2013.

Judge McShane's practices and standing orders

Rules for cases before Judge McShane, 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

Filing

Do not send Judge McShane paper copies of filings except documents identified in the trial management order.

“PLEASE DO NOT SEND JUDGE MCSHANE PAPER COPIES OF YOUR FILINGS.”

Motions

Judge McShane usually grants a request for oral argument.

“In most cases, Judge McShane will grant a request for oral argument.”

Discovery

Email the courtroom deputy an outline of a discovery dispute for a telephone conference.

“The parties may email Judge McShane’s Courtroom Deputy with an outline of the dispute and the parties’ respective positions.”

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).

Key rules from these orders · The court's local rules ↗

How Judge McShane decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In one disability appeal, a fully developed record and credited symptom testimony led the court to order calculation and payment of benefits, rather than another administrative hearing.

“The record is fully developed and there are no ambiguities that further administrative proceedings need resolve.”

In Hanney v. Epic Aircraft, McShane adopted the finding that a buyer's personal or resale motive did not defeat the shared claims needed for class certification.

“Judge Kasubhai correctly determined that the personal or resale motive under the UTPA was an ‘orthogonal’ issue that did not defeat ‘the clear existence of shared legal claims’ for purposes of class certification.”

Procedural preferences

In Hanney v. Epic Aircraft, McShane denied a motion to strike class-certification reply arguments after finding they answered points raised in the opposition.

“Here, Judge Kasubhai correctly found that Plaintiffs did not assert new joinder arguments in their reply brief.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Coos County of Oregon v. Bernhardt, et al.
6:19-cv-00576-MC · 2020-03-23
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29), is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Stay of Proceedings (ECF No. 31) is DENIED.”

Garcia-Herrera v. Klamath County, Oregon, et al.
1:20-cv-01102-CL · 2021-05-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 11 and 16) are granted. Plaintiff's ADA Title II claim is dismissed without prejudice. All other claims and defendants are dismissed with prejudice.”

Byers v. Martin, et al.
2:20-cv-00319-MC · 2020-11-13
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... Plaintiff's state law claim is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and his Second Claim for Relief is DISMISSED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) is DENIED.”

Henson v. PeaceHealth Peace Harbor Medical Center
3:23-cv-01101-MK · 2024-01-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's third claim for relief is dismissed. Plaintiff's fourth claim is dismissed with prejudice.”

Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Centimark Corp.
6:21-cv-00644-MC · 2021-07-01
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED. This matter is remanded to the Circuit Court of Oregon for the County of Deschutes.”

Elli-Hou Farms, LLC v. Abu Farie
1:21-cv-00952-CL · 2023-06-15
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff’s Motion for default judgment (#42) is GRANTED.”

Duren v. TransUnion, LLC
1:20-cv-02146-CL · 2021-08-12
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“FedLoan Servicing’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.”

Sims v. Salem Health Hospitals and Clinics
6:17-cv-00404-MC · 2017-06-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief: federal race discrimination is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief: state race discrimination is dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal jurisdiction.”

Motion to correct docket (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiff’s motion to correct docket (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED in part. The court docket shall be corrected to reflect the complaint filing date of March 13, 2017.”

Sublimity Harvest Foundation v. Bleacher Builders Inc.
6:24-cv-01140-MC · 2024-09-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff has 28 days to amend their complaint.”

Schroeder v. University of Oregon
6:23-cv-01806-MC · 2025-04-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 27, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”

Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 26, is DENIED”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, is DENIED.”

Moret v. Oregon State Hospital
6:18-cv-01105-MK · 2021-05-12
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 61) is DENIED.”

Motions to transfer (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Case to state court (ECF No. 81) is DENIED.”

Haight v. United States
1:17-cv-00014-CL · 2017-09-21
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint, within 90 days of the date of this order, containing a more definite statement of her claims. Her claims for violations of the FDCPA and perjury are DISMISSED with PREJUDICE and may not be included in any amended complaint.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 531 days (N = 4).

The 2019-2021 case sample includes False Claims Act, Social Security, consumer-credit, personal-injury, prisoner civil-rights, employee-benefits, and criminal matters. Reported durations measure the life of each case, not the time taken to decide a motion.

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 months2
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years9
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 202629
Sep 2025114
Mar 2025812
Sep 2024410
Mar 202437
Sep 202398
Mar 202319
Sep 20222312
Mar 20221012
Sep 20212911
Mar 20211511
Sep 20201311

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 McShane: 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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed1,6479.8 months
Closed with no court action3005.2 months
Closed before pretrial1,31610.4 months
Closed during or after pretrial9not reported
Closed during trial2233.6 months
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20251,6479.8 months
Sep 20241,63310.2 months
Sep 20231,47211.6 months
Sep 20221,62013.7 months
Sep 20211,50111.8 months
Sep 20201,53611.8 months
Sep 20191,59611.6 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 McShane with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McShane, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge McShane's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace