John T. Rodgers
How Judge Rodgers rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Rodgers no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Rodgers
John T. Rodgers served as a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Washington from 2013 until 2021. Before joining the federal bench, he led the Spokane County Public Defender’s Office.
How Judge Rodgers decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In prisoner First Amendment religious-exercise claims, he required a showing that a facility restriction actually prevented a specific religious practice, and accepted a legitimate penological-safety justification (here, restricting cleansing rituals to a designated area) as defeating the claim at summary judgment.
“Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice, thus concluding this action in its entirety.”
In United States v. Strouse, Rodgers reconsidered a detention order and released a methamphetamine-conspiracy defendant to intensive outpatient treatment and home confinement. He weighed the defendant's medical condition, family ties, and minimal criminal history against firearms found at the residence, and found the government had not carried its burdens on flight risk and community safety.
“The Court, having considered the proffers of Defendant and Plaintiff, and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142, finds the United States has not met its burden and shown by a preponderance that no combination of conditions will reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance for further proceedings, and by clear and convincing evidence that no combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community if Defendant is released pending trial.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Ward, Rodgers denied a contested request to remove electronic home monitoring because the defendant had not shown a significant change since the court imposed that condition.
“The court finds that conditions have not significantly changed from the time the condition of electronic home monitoring was determined appropriate and, therefore, The Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release by removing the requirement of electronic home monitoring, ECF NO. 735, is DENIED.”
Cautions
He enforced the second-or-successive habeas gatekeeping rule strictly even against a pro se petitioner's lengthy, disorganized submission, recommending transfer to the court of appeals rather than reaching the merits.
“This Court lacks authority to review second or successive habeas petitions filed without authorization from the Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2244(b)(3)(A).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 37, be GRANTED.”
“After reviewing the administrative record and briefs filed by the parties, the court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“After reviewing the administrative record and the briefs filed by the parties, the court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“After reviewing the administrative record and briefs filed by the parties, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and remands the matter to the Commissioner for additional proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g).”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is ADOPTED in its entirety and the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to seeking appropriate remedies in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.”
Rodgers recommended transferring a successive, unauthorized habeas petition to the Ninth Circuit. No party motion was pending, so the entry reflects a recommendation on the petition rather than a motion ruling.
“The Court, having considered the proffers of Defendant and Plaintiff, and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142, finds the United States has not met its burden and shown by a preponderance that no combination of conditions will reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance for further proceedings, and by clear and convincing evidence that no combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community if Defendant is released pending trial. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED Defendant's Motion, ECF No. 166, is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Modify, ECF No. 193, as well as the Motion to Expedite, ECF No. 194, are GRANTED.”
“Having reviewed Defendant's record of compliance with conditions of release, and understanding that neither the United States Attorney's office or the Office of Pretrial Services have objected to the motion, and finding good cause therefore, the Motion is Granted.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion, ECF No. 111, is GRANTED. The Order Setting Conditions of Release, ECF NO. 78, is hereby amended so that paragraph 11 shall provide for a $20,000 percentage bond, with a cash deposit of $2,000.00 with the Clerk of the Court, instead of the $75,000.00 percentage bond originally ordered.”
“For the reasons stated in court, Defendant's Motion is DENIED. Electronic monitoring shall remain in place for the time being.”
“The court finds that conditions have not significantly changed from the time the condition of electronic home monitoring was determined appropriate and, therefore, The Defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release by removing the requirement of electronic home monitoring, ECF NO. 735, is DENIED.”
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Rodgers was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
A historical record
Judge Rodgers 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.