James A. Goeke
How Judge Goeke rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Goeke
James A. Goeke has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in Spokane for the Eastern District of Washington since November 1, 2021. He previously served as a federal prosecutor in Alaska and eastern Washington and clerked for U.S. District Judge Wm. Fremming Nielsen. He earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Washington and a law degree from the University of California, Berkeley.
Judge Goeke's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Goeke'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).
How Judge Goeke decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Timothy N. v. O'Malley, Goeke remanded a Social Security disability appeal after finding that the ALJ had not given clear and convincing reasons to discount the claimant's testimony about mental-health symptoms. He found that the claimant's daily activities and examination results did not reasonably conflict with the symptoms he described.
“The ALJ erred for two reasons. First, these are not legitimate inconsistencies. Plaintiff's performance on mental status examinations and during consultative examinations ... is not reasonably inconsistent with Plaintiff's testimony concerning, among other things, periods of high anxiety and panic, thoughts of self-harm, and suicidal ideation.”
In United States v. Wang, Goeke rejected an official-restraint argument and denied a motion to dismiss an illegal-entry charge. Video showed that agents lost sight of the defendant and her companions for about five minutes in a wooded area, and the record showed no surveillance by another government actor during that interval.
“The Court's review of the video evidence demonstrates that Defendant was not under constant surveillance because Defendant and her companions were not visible to Agent Padilla ... for approximately five minutes when they entered a wooded area and there is no evidence Defendant and her companions were under surveillance by any other governmental actor.”
At a detention review hearing, he approved release to a recovery residence after inpatient treatment where a structured outpatient plan and supervision conditions addressed appearance and safety, and the government and probation did not oppose the plan. The order turned on that specific plan and record.
“overcome the presumption of detention in this case;”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Watson, Goeke addressed the defendant's post-trial motions and request for return of property in one written order following a combined motions and sentencing hearing. He denied the new-trial and acquittal motions and granted the request for return of property.
“A motion and sentencing hearing was held on October 31, 2024. ... The Court addressed Defendant's pending motions and imposed a sentence. The imposition of sentence and judgment is filed in a separate document; this order memorializes and decides the pending motions.”
Cautions
In United States v. St. Peter, Goeke denied a request to remove GPS monitoring and home detention despite the government’s lack of opposition, finding its changed position unexplained and the existing conditions necessary for appearance and safety.
“The Government's current position to be entirely at odds and incongruent with its prior strenuous advocacy in this case. ... it does not then follow that the electronic monitoring condition and home detention condition are therefore wholly unnecessary and superfluous.”
In United States v. Yeager, Goeke kept electronic location monitoring in place despite the defendant's 14-month compliance record, finding that it remained an essential pretrial-release condition in that case. He eased home detention to a curfew in light of the defendant's changed circumstances.
“It still does not then follow that the electronic monitoring condition is therefore now unnecessary or superfluous. As the Court has previously stated, the Court continues to view the electronic location monitoring condition as an essential pretrial release condition.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, be DENIED; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, be GRANTED; and the District Court Executive enter Judgment in favor of Defendant.”
“The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner, DENIES Defendant's motion to affirm, and REMANDS the matter for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or to Transfer Venue to Arizona, filed January 27, 2023, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Venue shall be transferred to the District of Arizona.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Stay Notice an Appeal Petition, ECF No. 6, is DENIED.”
“The Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release, ECF No. 74, is DENIED. Defendant shall be held in detention pending disposition of this case or until further order of the court.”
“Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release, ECF No. 26, is DENIED for the reasons stated in this Order.”
“The Court finding good cause, IT IS ORDERED Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions, ECF No. 88, is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for New Trial Under Rule 33 and to Take Additional Testimony, ECF No. 63, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 29, ECF No. 66, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's renewed oral motion, and pending Motions for Release of Property, ECF Nos. 18 & 33, are GRANTED. The Government shall return Defendant's confiscated property.”
“Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release at ECF No. 77, is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART as follows: Condition 28 at ECF No. 31 is now REPLACED with Condition 28 as follows: HOME CONFINEMENT/ELECTRONIC/GPS MONITORING ... AND Curfew.”
“The Court DENIES Defendant's oral motion to dismiss the case, ECF No. 14 for the reasons stated during the hearing and in this Order.”
“The Court therefore GRANTS the United States' motion for detention, ECF No. 6.”
“Defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. ... the Court DENIES Defendant's motion at ECF No. 20 for reconsideration of the Court's denial of Defendant's prior motion to dismiss.”
“Following a colloquy with Defendant the Court finds Defendant is competent; her guilty plea is knowing, voluntary and intelligently given ... The Court accepts the Defendant's guilty plea to Improper Entry by Alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1).”
“Defendant’s Motion, ECF No. 555, is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Unopposed Motion, ECF No. 132, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s request for remand, ECF No. 9, is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The Social Security appeal docket is his largest caseload category by volume and the only motion-type bucket in this record with enough classified motions (N=15) to clear the rate-display threshold. A substantial number of 2025-2026 filings, both Social Security appeals and general civil removals, were still pending at last check and are not yet reflected in the motion-outcome counts below.
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 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, not for Judge Goeke: 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 | 620 | 6.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 56 | 4.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 554 | 6.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 3 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 7 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 620 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 700 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 694 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 890 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 852 | 9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 963 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 954 | 9.4 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 Goeke with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Goeke, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Goeke's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace