James P. Hutton
How Judge Hutton rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Hutton no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Hutton
James P. Hutton served as a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Washington from 2008 until his retirement in 2016. He previously served on the Yakima County Superior Court from 1996 to 2007.
How Judge Hutton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Eldridge v. Colvin, Hutton affirmed the denial of Social Security benefits after finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ's treatment of medical opinions. He accepted the ALJ's decision to give little weight to Dr. Moise's opinion because it conflicted with her own examination findings.
“The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Moise's April 2009 opinion because the opinion is inconsistent with her own findings. A medical opinion may be rejected by the ALJ if it contains inconsistencies.”
In Macken v. Spokane County, Hutton granted summary judgment on most claims because the plaintiff had signed a settlement release and presented no evidence of coercion or another basis to invalidate it.
“One attacking a release or settlement 'must bear the burden of showing that the contract he [or she] made is tainted with invalidity.' ... Plaintiff fails to establish the first and second elements. He presents no evidence of coercion nor any other reason the release should be invalidated.”
Procedural preferences
In Evenson v. Knezovich, Hutton recommended severing multiple pro se prisoner plaintiffs into separate actions because joint litigation presented procedural delays and confusion. District Judge Suko adopted the recommendation.
“In this court's experience, an action brought by multiple inmate plaintiffs proceeding pro se presents procedural problems that cause delay and confusion. Delay often arises from the frequent transfer of inmates to other facilities or institutions...”
Cautions
In United States v. Nunez, Hutton denied a request to remove GPS monitoring and a curfew despite the defendant's compliance. He found the alleged drug quantity and presence of firearms raised a community-safety risk that those conditions helped reduce.
“The charges are incredibly serious. Any time there are firearms present along with controlled substances, there is an increased risk of danger to the community. ... GPS monitoring and the curfew conditions aid compliance, thereby reducing risk to the community.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED. The case is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four for further administrative proceedings. 2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED: Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 20, is granted. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 17, is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 18, is granted. 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 16, is denied.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's motion for temporary furlough (ECF No. 77) is DENIED, with leave to renew.”
“Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton filed a Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 10, recommending Mr. Tomisser's request to Voluntarily Dismiss this action be granted. Defendants have not been served. There being no objections, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (ECF No. 29) and Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 30) are GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (ECF No. 40) is DENIED and Defendant's Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (ECF No. 39) and Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 40) are GRANTED.”
“No objections having been filed within the time allowed, the undersigned hereby adopts the June 3, 2015 ‘Report And Recommendation To Dismiss Habeas Action’ (ECF No. 6) filed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. Petitioner's petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction over named Respondent, Washington State, and for failure to exhaust available state court remedies.”
“IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Ct. Rec. 10) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED the Motions for Class Certification (Ct. Rec. 4) and for Appointment of Counsel (Ct. Rec. 5) are DENIED.”
“As a result, defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 65, is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Hutton was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2022.
| 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 | 9 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 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 Hutton no longer sits on this court. 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.