Camela Catherine Theeler
How Judge Theeler rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Theeler
Camela Catherine Theeler is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Theeler received a commission on June 4, 2024.
Judge Theeler's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Theeler's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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).
- STANDING ORDER 25-03 - In the Matter of Procedures for the Access and Management of Non-Public Documents in Criminal Cases ↗
- Standing Order 22-06 Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines in Criminal Cases ↗
- Standing Order 23-02 Revising the Procedure for Compassionate Release Motions Under the First Step Act ↗
- Standing Order 24-01 - Disclosure of Jail Incident Reports or Similar Documents ↗
How Judge Theeler decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Buffalo v. South Dakota Department of Social Services, she allowed several pro se due-process claims to proceed past screening after finding plausible allegations of protected interests and a lack of meaningful notice or an opportunity to be heard.
“Buffalo has provided enough facts to state a plausible procedural due process violation, and her Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Rodriguez in her individual capacity for money damages and official capacity for injunctive relief survives 1915 screening.”
In a crop insurance agency review, Theeler read the governing regulations by their plain terms and rejected an additional prerequisite that the agency had inferred from the insurance policy.
“the Director’s interpretation of § 400.352 and § 400.176(b) violates the basic interpretation principle that words or phrases are not to be read into unambiguous regulations.”
Procedural preferences
In Buffalo, Theeler applied the due-process requirement of an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner while screening the plaintiff’s notice and hearing claims.
“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.'”
In Roberts v. Boyd, Theeler deemed the physician’s statement of facts admitted after the plaintiff did not answer it in numbered paragraphs with record citations and instead cited unsupported pleadings.
“While Mr. Roberts filed pleadings opposing Dr. Boyd's motion for summary judgment ... Mr. Roberts did not respond to Dr. Boyd's statement of undisputed material facts with separately numbered paragraphs and appropriate citations to the record. ... Therefore, the Court deems admitted the facts set forth in Dr. Boyd's statement of undisputed material facts.”
In LeGrand v. Carpenter, Theeler denied the plaintiff’s request for rehearing or reconsideration of summary judgment because he identified no manifest error or Rule 60(b) ground; she also rejected his attempt to raise a new § 1985 claim through Rule 59(e).
“In his objection and motion for rehearing, LeGrand does not identify any manifest error of law or fact or any basis for relief under Rule 60(b).”
In Reller v. Winch, Theeler denied a motion to compel because the record did not show the required meet and confer effort.
“Because the record does not demonstrate that Reller complied with the applicable meet and confer requirements, his motion to compel, Docket 61, is denied.”
Cautions
In Delehoy, Theeler dismissed a habeas petition as untimely after finding no new evidence to support the petitioner’s actual-innocence claim; his assertion that a witness had lied did not displace the jury’s credibility finding.
“Delehoy provides no new evidence to rebut the factual determinations made by the jury at trial in arriving at his guilty verdict. ... his habeas petition under § 2254 is dismissed with prejudice as to all respondents.”
In Roberts v. Boyd, she held that the prisoner's medical-care claim presented a new Bivens context and granted the physician summary judgment after finding the treatment record did not support deliberate indifference.
“Mr. Roberts's Bivens claim against Dr. Boyd falls outside the three contexts in which the Supreme Court has recognized Bivens as a remedy.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
Pro se IFP suit by Keshia Latonne Buffalo against state, tribal, and private defendants arising from a child-protective-services matter, a family safety plan, and the suspension of her CNA and driver's licenses for past-due child support. 45-page order: IFP granted, followed by a detailed 28 U.S.C. 1915 screening. Liberally construing the complaint, Theeler held several Fourteenth Amendment procedural-due-process claims plausible and let them proceed, against CPS assessor Rafina Rodriguez (individual + official capacity) and Child Support Enforcement caseworkers Jane Bales and Erin Burke, on a lack-of-notice theory (no meaningful opportunity to be heard before the safety plan or before the license suspensions), citing Mathews v. Eldridge, Bell v. Burson, and Barry v. Barchi. Claims against purely private non-state actors analyzed under the state-action requirement. The retrieved text truncated at ~page 27 of 45, so the complete list of dismissed claims/defendants was not read; only surviving-claim holdings are quoted here.
“ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgement, Docket 20, is granted. It is further ORDERED that Tobacco’s complaint, Docket 1, is dismissed with prejudice.”
“ORDERED that KPI’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b), Docket 36, is granted. Tovar’s complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice”
“ORDERED that KPI’s motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses, Docket 36, is denied.”
“ORDERED that Dr. Boyd’s motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss, Docket 45, is granted.”
“ORDERED that Mr. Roberts’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Boyd is dismissed with prejudice, and his state-law medical malpractice claim against Dr. Boyd, Docket 1, is dismissed with prejudice.”
“ORDERED that Dr. Boyd’s motion to stay discovery, Docket 50, is dismissed as moot.”
“ORDERED that Mr. Roberts’s motion to compel, Dockets 58, is denied.”
“ORDERED that Mr. Roberts’s motion to provide supplemental information, Docket 61, is denied.”
“ORDERED that the United States’ partial motion to dismiss, Docket 9, is granted in part and denied in part;”
“the Court grants the Plaintiffs leave under Rule 15 to amend their complaint to dismiss counts three through five”
“ORDERED that Finneman’s motion for summary judgment, Docket 32, is granted.”
“ORDERED that the Defendants’ request for summary judgment, Docket 39, is denied.”
“ORDERED that Lillian ‘Toni’ Montileaux’s motion to dismiss, Docket 13, is granted.”
“ORDERED that Mazaska Owecaso Otipi Financial Inc.’s renewed motion for a temporary restraining order, Docket 17, is dismissed as moot.”
“ORDERED that Mr. Anderson’s motion for recusal or disqualification, Docket 33, is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Mr. Anderson’s motion to stay, Docket 35, is denied as moot.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, Docket 9, is granted to the extent set forth herein.”
“ORDERED that the Government’s motion for summary judgment, Docket 36, is granted.”
“That LeGrand’s motion for substitution of party (Docket 124), is granted.”
“That LeGrand’s motion for assisted service (Docket 124) is denied as moot.”
“That Defendant Althoff and Defendants Wasko’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, Docket 17, is granted”
“That Defendant Schema’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, Docket 26, is granted”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled cases include older inherited prisoner and habeas matters and newer federal tort and crop insurance disputes. Inherited cases still dominate the motion counts, so this case mix describes the selected dockets only.
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 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 South Dakota, not for Judge Theeler: 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 | 236 | 10.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 76 | 11 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 151 | 8.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 236 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 248 | 11.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 222 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 220 | 12.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 197 | 13.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 216 | 11.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 233 | 10.8 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 Theeler with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Theeler, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Theeler's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace