Mustafa T. Kasubhai
How Judge Kasubhai rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kasubhai
Mustafa Taher Kasubhai is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Kasubhai received a commission on November 22, 2024.
Judge Kasubhai's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kasubhai, 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.
- United States District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai ↗
- Case Management Order Template ↗
- Trial Management Order Template ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Address people by their previously identified pronouns and honorifics in filings and court proceedings.
“Parties and counsel are instructed to address each other in all written documents and court proceedings by those previously identified pronouns and honorifics.”
Motions
Absent exigency, seek an extension at least five days before the deadline and explain good cause.
“a motion to extend case or briefing deadlines must be received at least five days before the current deadline and must include an explanation of good cause for the extension.”
Trial
Judge Kasubhai’s trial management template treats a set trial date as firm, subject to unusual unforeseen circumstances.
“The trial date is a firm date and will be continued only in unusual and unforeseen circumstances.”
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 Kasubhai decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In State of Oregon v. Kennedy, Kasubhai emphasized dedication to the rule of law in explaining his decision.
“Unserious leaders are unsafe. There is nothing more serious than our leaders' dedication to the rule of law so that we might maintain the integrity of our constitutional democracy.”
In consolidated health-care employment cases, accepted an undue-hardship defense to individual religious-accommodation claims where the record showed the jobs could not be performed fully remotely and the proposed in-person accommodations would impose undue hardship.
“It would have been futile to individually consider Plaintiffs’ accommodation requests.”
In Macias v. State of Oregon, Kasubhai let prisoner medical-care claims against several officials proceed because evidence of delayed care could support a finding of deliberate indifference, while dismissing separate failure-to-train claims.
“As discussed above, a reasonable fact finder could find that the State Defendants and Defendant Roberts acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.”
Procedural preferences
In State of Oregon v. Kennedy, Kasubhai rejected defendants’ collection of case citations as unhelpful to the dispute over the scope of injunctive relief and applied the governing standard to the requested injunction.
“Defendants' spaghetti-at-the-wall case law citation is unhelpful.”
In Alderman v. Alfalfa Fire District, Kasubhai granted emergency relief in part and waived Rule 65(c) security after finding no realistic likelihood that the injunction would harm the defendant.
“No security is required under Rule 65(c) because ‘there is no realistic likelihood of harm to the defendant from enjoining [its] conduct.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 13. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is denied.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 73) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is granted in part. The Court does not reach Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed in the same brief as the Temporary Restraining Order, to allow Defendant an opportunity to respond.”
District-judge order adopting Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke's F&R (after de novo review of plaintiff's objections) dismissing a pro se complaint for lack of jurisdiction, leave to amend denied. Sua sponte/jurisdictional disposition with no contested party motion: excluded from district motion stats. Grounding quote: 'The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Clarke's Findings and Recommendation, ECF No. 10. This matter is DISMISSED and leave to amend is DENIED. Any remaining pending motions are DENIED as moot.'
MAGISTRATE-ERA Findings & Recommendation, signed 'KASUBHAI, United States Magistrate Judge' on 2024-09-17, before his 2024-11-22 district commission. Holiday Farm Fire litigation; recommends GRANTING defendant Eugene Water & Electric Board's partial motion to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds. A recommendation, not a final ruling, excluded from district stats. Grounding quote: 'Before the Court is Defendant Eugene Water & Electric Board's ("EWEB") Partial Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint... Defendant EWEB's Motion should be GRANTED.'
“For the reasons discussed above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with leave to amend.”
“Defendant Commonspirit Oregon and Mariah Holcomb’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) is therefore DENIED as to all claims except it is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s Monell claim (Fifth Claim for Relief) against Defendant Commonspirit. That claim is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 21 days of the entry of this Order.”
“Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to an award of $83,213.10 in attorney fees.”
“Defendants’ and Intervenors’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 31, 32) are GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.”
“For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 27) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED IN PART”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED”
“Defendant’s Single Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57) is DENIED”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 81) is DENIED”
“Defendant’s Consolidated Phase One Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 124 in 6:23-cv-01718-MTK; ECF No. 50 in 6:23-cv-01460- MTK) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The 20-case sample, filed in 2025 and 2026, is weighted toward employment and other civil-rights matters, Social Security, immigration, personal injury, prisoner litigation, trademark, and criminal cases. Because Kasubhai joined the district court in November 2024, nearly all sampled matters remain pending and contested-case durations are not yet available.
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 | 7 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 7 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 6 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 12 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 17 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 13 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 9 | 11 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 9 |
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 Kasubhai: 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 Kasubhai with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kasubhai, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kasubhai's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace