Paul Jerome Papak
How Judge Papak rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Papak
Paul Jerome Papak has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Oregon since September 2005. Before joining the bench, he worked as a federal public defender in Iowa and Oregon.
Judge Papak's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Papak, 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 Papak decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In equal-pay litigation, Papak treated substantial factual disputes over comparable work and pay as matters for trial rather than resolving them on summary judgment.
“deny the University’s motion for summary judgment on Allender’s state law equal pay claim”
In administrative review, he granted relief when the agency's credential-equivalency decision departed from the record and governing standards.
“The court vacates Defendants’ decision and orders Defendants to approve the Church’s 1-140 immigrant visa petition on behalf of Park.”
Procedural preferences
In document-review disputes, Papak required production of reasonably segregable, nonprivileged material rather than allowing a broad privilege assertion to shield whole documents.
“The Corps is required under the Ninth Circuit jurisprudence discussed above to produce segregable non-privileged statements contained within the briefing materials in response to CRK’s FOIA request.”
When permitting a pseudonymous plaintiff to proceed, he kept the issue open for renewed review as trial approached and emphasized active protection of both sides' rights.
“this court shall monitor these proceedings sua sponte as they go forward, to prevent avoidable impairment of defendants’ rights in consequence of John’s anonymity.”
Cautions
A partial-summary-judgment request may be denied without prejudice when the legal issue is better resolved on a fuller record later in the case.
“Morris’ motion (# 102) for partial summary judgment is denied without prejudice to Morris’ entitlement to bring any motion raising the same or related legal issues at a later stage of these proceedings”
Papak declined partial summary judgment on an excessive force claim where testimony left the tightness of handcuffs unresolved.
“there are unresolved questions of material fact as to whether Faulkner placed the handcuffs on Mally's wrists unreasonably tightly.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Key-Bank’s motion (# 110) is denied”
“TriMet’s motion (# 115) is granted as to CRM’s claim for declaratory judgment”
“CRM’s motion (# 118) is granted as to the narrow question of TriMet’s liability in connection with CRM’s crossclaim for breach of the statutory warranty arising under O.R.S. 75.1100(l)(b) and otherwise denied.”
“Micro-DAQ’s motion (# 17) to dismiss should be granted, and CSI’s claims should be dismissed without prejudice in their entirety.”
“Defendants’ motion to require compliance with Rule 10(a)(# 6) is denied with leave to refile.”
Papak identified the agency action subject to review but deferred the pending merits and record motions: “Resolution of ONDA’s motion for summary judgment (# 52), BLM’s cross-motion for summary judgment (# 67), and BLM’s motion to strike extra-record materials (# 59) will be delayed pending further briefing and oral argument.”
“The court vacates Defendants’ decision and orders Defendants to approve the Church’s 1-140 immigrant visa petition on behalf of Park.”
“ONDA’s motion for leave to supplement its complaint (# 161) is denied”
“ONDA’s motion to modify the court’s earlier temporary injunction (# 162) is denied”
“ONDA’s motion to compel (# 163) is granted.”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (# 24) is denied.”
“this court grants plaintiff BMBP’s motion for attorney fees and costs (# 182) in the following amounts: $79,256.00 in attorney fees and $9,671.00 in costs and other expenses for a total award of $88,927.00.”
“the Corps’ motion (# 27) for summary judgment is granted as to the Corps’ decision to withhold from production in response to CRK’s FOIA request the document bearing Vaughn Nos. 102-103 and is otherwise denied”
“CRK’s cross-motion (# 32) for summary judgment is denied as to that same document and is otherwise granted.”
“Reames’ motion (#5) for remand should be granted, and this action should be remanded to the Multnomah County Circuit Court for further proceedings in that forum.”
“I recommend denying Healthport’s motion for summary judgment (# 100)”
“granting Tanita’s motion for summary judgment (# 99).”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (# 41) is granted in part.”
“Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (# 51) is denied.”
“Plaintiffs motion to strike (# 64) is denied as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The randomized 2010 sample includes habeas, statutory, contract, employment, and personal-injury matters. All five sampled cases terminated, with durations ranging from less than one month to about one year. Case duration measures the life of the matter, not decision time on 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 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 | 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 District of Oregon, not for Judge Papak: 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 Papak with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Papak, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Papak's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace