William I. Arbuckle III
How Judge Arbuckle rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Arbuckle no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Arbuckle
William I. Arbuckle III served as a United States magistrate judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania from 2008 until his retirement in 2025. Based in Williamsport, he previously worked as a prosecutor, public defender, and lawyer in private practice.
How Judge Arbuckle decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim brought by a former federal inmate over a prison program's handshake requirement, he found the record showed the government had not carried its burden of showing a compelling interest served by the least restrictive means, and recommended the claim survive summary judgment rather than accepting the burden as met on the government's say-so.
“the Government has not shown it had a compelling interest in this matter or that it took the least restrictive method in attending to its stated interest.”
In Fattah’s medical-care suit, the district court adopted his recommendation to grant the physician summary judgment after finding that the prisoner had not properly exhausted his medical grievances under the PLRA.
“Accordingly, I will adopt Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s recommendation that Dr. Symons’s Summary Judgment Motion be granted, because Fattah failed to properly exhaust his PLRA remedies with respect to the thirty-one (31) healthcare grievances that he filed, which relate to his Eighth Amendment claims against Dr. Symons.”
Procedural preferences
In civil cases where the parties consent to his jurisdiction and the matter proceeds to trial, he sets a firm trial date as early as possible, typically at the initial case-management conference, and rarely moves it within 30 days of trial absent extraordinary circumstances. He requires trial briefs, requires exhibits to be pre-marked and exchanged at the pretrial conference, generally lets counsel conduct voir dire in civil cases (while conducting the initial voir dire himself in criminal cases), and pursues settlement actively in jury cases.
“Judge Arbuckle scheduled trials for a date certain as early as possible, normally at the initial Case Management Conference. Trial dates are only changed in the 30 day period before trial in extraordinary circumstances.”
Cautions
In one reviewed immigration bond-hearing habeas case, his recommendation for an individualized bond hearing was overtaken by a change in the petitioner's custody status before the district judge ruled, resulting in the petition being dismissed as moot rather than the recommendation being adopted.
“we find that his instant petition for habeas corpus is moot.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 8, is DENIED AS MOOT”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Two of five self-represented plaintiffs had not complied with an earlier order to pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed without prepayment. Judge Arbuckle recommended dismissing their claims for that noncompliance, and the district judge adopted the recommendation without objection. This was a court-directed case-management dismissal rather than a ruling on a party motion.
“Defendant Turlip's motion to dismiss, (Doc. 13), is GRANTED. The plaintiff's claims against defendant Turlip are DISMISSED IN THEIR ENTIRETY.”
“Kennedy' motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is construed as a notice of dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41; ... This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“we will decline to adopt the magistrate judge's R&R, and dismiss the petitioner's habeas corpus petition as moot ... we find that his instant petition for habeas corpus is moot.”
“The report (Doc. 17) of Magistrate Judge Arbuckle is ADOPTED. ... Verma's petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.”
“The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the Report and Recommendation ... to the extent that it recommends that Petitioner be afforded an individualized bond hearing; ... Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED”
“Accordingly, I will adopt Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s recommendation that Dr. Symons’s Summary Judgment Motion be granted, because Fattah failed to properly exhaust his PLRA remedies with respect to the thirty-one (31) healthcare grievances that he filed, which relate to his Eighth Amendment claims against Dr. Symons.”
“Dr. Murray's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 24), will be DENIED with respect to the plaintiff's remaining RFRA claim, without prejudice to assert the qualified immunity defense.”
“The government's motion to dismiss, (Doc. 17), will be DISMISSED AS MOOT”
“Judge Arbuckle's report and recommendation is adopted in part, modified in part, and rejected in part; the Defendants' motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part”
“Dixon's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied as moot”
“The Commissioner's decision is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings ... Final Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g)”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 518 days (N = 9).
- The sampled dockets are concentrated in two categories the district routes to him under direct party consent: Social Security disability appeals and prisoner civil-rights cases.
- A broader search also surfaced referral dockets pending before other district judges (general civil and prisoner cases in which he handled discovery and pretrial matters short of final judgment), consistent with a magistrate's typical mixed caseload.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Arbuckle was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2025.
| Motions pending more than six months | 15 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 25 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2025 | 15 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 21 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 9 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 2 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Arbuckle no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.