Frederick Leforest Van Sickle
How Judge Sickle rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Sickle no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Sickle
Frederick L. Van Sickle was a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Van Sickle received a commission on May 14, 1991. Judge Van Sickle assumed senior status on May 1, 2008 and served until death on September 2, 2021.
How Judge Sickle decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Clean Water Act citizen suit, he dismissed the claims after finding that none of the plaintiffs had given the defendant the required notice.
“In this case, none of the Plaintiffs in the action gave notice to the Defendant. The notice requirement of section 1365(b) has not been met by Plaintiffs.”
He required a hearing before the government took a detainee's money to satisfy a booking fee.
“In this situation, due process requires a pre-deprivation hearing.”
He treated food and medical care furnished by a communal farm as deductible business expenses on the facts presented.
“Since the disputed food and medical expenses are deductible under § 162, they fall outside the scope of § 262.”
Procedural preferences
He would not dismiss an indictment before trial when the legal defense depended on unresolved facts.
“Since the legal issue that the defendants have raised cannot be segregated from the evidence that will be presented at trial, and since it is unclear whether the Washington Supreme Court would adopt Dr. Flaiz’s interpretation of RCW 18.71.030(6), the defendants are not entitled to dismissal prior to trial under Rule 12(b).”
Cautions
He warned counsel that direct unsolicited correspondence would not be considered.
“Counsel should be advised that unsolicited correspondence with the Court is not in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such correspondence has been and will be ignored.”
In Washington Trout, the defendant obtained dismissal of the environmental claims, but the court denied its request for fees because the plaintiffs had not acted in bad faith or recklessly in filing suit.
“There is no showing in this case that the Plaintiffs acted in bad faith or recklessness in filing this suit. There is no basis for granting Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Ct.Rec. 12, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:”
“Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees is denied.”
“The Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment, and, Alternatively to Vacate Arbitration Awards, Ct. Rec. 43, is GRANTED.”
“The Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment, Ct. Rec. 13, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Ct.Rec.27) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Failure to State a Claim; Alternatively for Summary Judgment (Ct.Rec.36) is DENIED.”
“The Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice, Ct. Rec. 66, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, Ct. Rec. 62, is DENIED.”
“The plaintiffs’ motions to remand (Ct.Recs.8,14) are DENIED.”
“The plaintiffs’ motions for costs and attorney’s fees (Ct.Recs.8, 14) are DENIED.”
“Burlington’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Ct.Rec. 2) is granted. The City of Connell is enjoined from enforcing Ordinance # 605 pending trial on the merits.”
“The motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs Bohnet and Watkins (Ct. Rec.43) is granted in part and denied in part:”
“The motion for summary judgement filed by defendant Peterson (Ct.Rec.61) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendant Peterson's motion to strike the plaintiffs' reply brief (Ct.Rec.63) and Peterson's motion to strike the Bohnet declaration (Ct.Rec.65) are denied.”
“The government’s motion for summary judgment (Ct.Rec.13) is GRANTED.”
“The plaintiffs’ motion to continue summary judgment hearing (Ct.Rec.27) is GRANTED.”
“The government’s motion to strike brief and declaration (Ct.Rec.32) is DENIED.”
“The plaintiffs’ motion for permission to file over length brief (Ct.Rec.38) is GRANTED.”
“The plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Ct.Rec.41) is DENIED.”
“The defendants’ ‘Motion to Dismiss Indictment’ (ECF No. 31) is denied.”
“The ‘United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment’ (ECF No. 54) is denied.”
“Mr. Stahl’s ‘Motion for Summary Judgment’ (ECF No. 49) is granted subject to the concessions his attorney made at oral argument.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 556.5 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 6 days (N = 1).
The ten sampled closed matters span employment and civil-rights, personal-injury, commerce, habeas, labor, and property disputes. Their durations describe this bounded historical sample rather than the judge's full career docket.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Sickle was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2021.
| 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 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.
A historical record
Judge Sickle no longer hears cases. 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.