Frederick Leforest Van Sickle
Judge Sickle no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Sickle decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He enforced mandatory statutory notice prerequisites even when doing so ended claims without reaching the merits.
“The Court concluded that notice requirements under the citizen suit provision of the RCRA were mandatory conditions precedent and that a district court may not ignore a plaintiffs failure to comply with the notice requirement.”
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.”
A losing environmental defendant did not receive fees without evidence that the plaintiffs acted recklessly or in bad faith.
“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.
A historical record
Judge Sickle no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.