Charles Bruno Kornmann
How Judge Kornmann rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kornmann
Charles B. Kornmann is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Kornmann received a commission on March 24, 1995. Judge Kornmann assumed senior status on July 31, 2008.
Judge Kornmann's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kornmann, 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
Contacting chambers
Obtain advance authorization before sending a fax to Judge Kornmann’s chambers.
“Do not send facsimile transmissions to my chambers without advance authorization.”
Filing
When asking for a written order, submit the proposed order and provide a copy to all parties.
“If you are asking for a written court order, you must submit a copy of the Order you want, in proper form, with a copy, of course, to all other parties.”
Filing
For filings longer than 50 pages, provide a separate copy to chambers in Aberdeen.
“If filing documents of more than 50 pages, you must provide a separate copy to my chambers in Aberdeen”
Motions
For motion exhibits, submit only relevant deposition pages or document portions and highlight the relevant material.
“Submit only pages and portions of documents that are relevant with the relevant material highlighted.”
Discovery
Get Judge Kornmann’s approval before filing a written civil discovery motion.
“please do not file written discoverv motions without my prior approval.”
Discovery
If informal resolution of a discovery dispute fails, both counsel should mail Judge Kornmann a letter describing the dispute and their efforts.
“both counsel should mail a letter to me, explaining the dispute and your efforts to solve it informally.”
Trial
At least three business days before trial, notify Judge Kornmann and opposing counsel in writing of expected spectators.
“At least three business days before trial, please consult with your clients and advise me and opposing counsel in writing of the names of family members, friends and others who may come to the trial as full or part-time spectators.”
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 Kornmann decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Evens v. Gusinsky, Kornmann dismissed a federal civil-rights challenge to state divorce and custody proceedings. He held that the federal court could not review final state judgments and abstained from interfering with ongoing custody proceedings.
“Lower federal courts do not sit as courts of appeal for state supreme courts deciding state law. ... This court is not a backdoor around State litigation.”
In a Section 1983 wrongful-arrest case he applies the 'arguable probable cause' qualified-immunity standard: officers prevail if a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed, even mistakenly. Disruptive conduct during another arrest gives at least arguable probable cause for an obstruction charge.
“Even if this conduct is not specifically contemplated by the law, the Officers certainly had arguable probable cause to believe that it was prohibited.”
In Jones v. Haglin, he denied a dismissal motion based on trade-secrets preemption because the alleged website and customer-contact conduct could have occurred without misappropriating a trade secret.
“These acts and the corresponding claims could have occurred whether or not the information at issue-trade secret or otherwise-was misappropriated. Thus, this court cannot find on the record before it that it appears beyond a doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of their claims.”
Procedural preferences
In Foxhoven v. Stacy, he construed the pro se complaint liberally but declined to treat later filings as new claims and held the plaintiff to the applicable procedural rules.
“Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se litigants are not excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.”
In Foxhoven v. Stacy, he considered video of the arrest described in the complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting it to summary judgment, while declining to rely on outside affidavits.
“The Court will consider the video evidence of the incident described in the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”
Cautions
In Doe v. Aberdeen School District, Kornmann partly granted summary judgment, dismissing the constitutional and state statutory claims while leaving disputed ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and individual negligence claims for trial.
“This lawsuit has caused the destruction of a small forest. Hopefully, we can end this and proceed to trial.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motions for summary judgment against plaintiffs E.E. and Julie Doe, docs. 87 & 92, are granted in part and denied in part.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Robert Gusinsky's Motions to Dismiss, Doc. 8, is granted.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim(Doc. 6)is granted.”
“Mr. Foxhoven's motions to compel(Does. 11 & 19) are denied.”
“That defendants' motion, Doc. 8, to dismiss counts two and five of the complaint is denied;”
“That plaintiff's motion, Doc. 22, to dismiss count four of the complaint is granted.”
“The United States' motion, Doc. 6, to dismiss Krissy Bagola's federal tort claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is denied. That claim is held in abeyance pending exhaustion.”
“The United States' motion, Doc. 6, to dismiss the Indian Civil Rights Act claim is granted.”
“The United States' motion, Doc. 6, to dismiss the Bivens claim is denied. The Bivens claim is asserted only against the individual defendant.”
“Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to liability, Doc. 34, is granted.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Doc. 48, is denied.”
“Defendants' motion for reconsideration, Doc 68, is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion, Doc. 14, for reconsideration is denied.”
“The report and recommendation, Doc. 61 is adopted. ... The motions, Docs. 48, 49, 52, and 55, to dismiss the indictment are denied.”
“The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner Lester Waters, Jr.'s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, doc. I, is denied.”
“I declare that the settlement agreement entered into June 23, 2011, in l:08-cv-01019-CBK, is valid and enforceable against Grady Renville.”
“Defendant Grady Renville is held in contempt of court. He shall pay to plaintiffs, as a sanction, plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses in the amount of $16,958.61.”
“The Report and Recommendation, Doc. 24, is adopted. The government's objections, Doc. 29, are overruled. The defendant's motion, Doc. 17, to suppress statements is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Caseload sample skews heavily to recent (2026) filings and reflects current intake as an active senior judge, not a career-long mix. Most enumerated cases remain pending (no termination date).
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 | 3 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 South Dakota, not for Judge Kornmann: 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 Kornmann with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kornmann, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kornmann's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace