Lonny R. Suko
How Judge Suko decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a First Amendment retaliation claim by a state employee over a salary reduction, the judge treated statements made pursuant to an employee's official job duties as categorically unprotected, applying Garcetti v. Ceballos to end the claim regardless of the employee's motive for speaking.
“We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.”
Denying summary judgment on a disability-discrimination claim, the judge found that without a precise line between an employee's essential and non-essential job duties, the reasonableness of an employer's proposed accommodation could not be decided as a matter of law and had to go to trial.
“Without a precise delineation between essential functions and non-essential functions, the court cannot rule at this time, as a matter of law, whether the eight hour a day limitation offered by the Defendant was a reasonable accommodation.”
Reviewing a Social Security disability denial, the judge required the ALJ to do more than restate a step-two severity finding when discounting a medical opinion's consistency with the record -- a generic cross-reference to an earlier finding does not satisfy the regulation's separate consistency analysis.
“The ALJ references her step two findings that Plaintiff's PTSD was not severe and her PRT findings that all four areas in the PRT had no more than mild limitations ... this hardly raises to the level of discussing consistency.”
Procedural preferences
Treats an unopposed summary-judgment motion as effectively conceded where the local rules deem a non-response as consent, but still checks that the moving party's own statement of undisputed facts actually supports judgment before granting it.
“A failure to timely file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion may be considered by the court as consent on the part of the party failing to file such memorandum to the entry of an order adverse to the party in default.”
In discovery disputes, escalates promptly from a compel order to a terminating sanction once a party ignores both the compel order and the sanctions motion itself, rather than issuing repeated warnings.
“Defendant was expressly cautioned that failure to comply with that order might result in the imposition of one or more of the sanctions specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), including default judgment. The entry of default judgment is appropriate.”
Cautions
Will dismiss a federal habeas petition as time-barred under AEDPA's one-year limitation period even where the petitioner claims a prison law library gave him inadequate notice of the deadline, holding that pro se status and lack of legal sophistication alone do not establish the extraordinary circumstances equitable tolling requires.
“A petitioner's pro se status, ignorance of the law, and lack of representation during the applicable filing period do not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling because such circumstances are not extraordinary.”
Denies class certification promptly once numerosity or typicality is plainly lacking, even when it is not strictly necessary to reach the issue because the underlying claims already failed on the merits.
“Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement, and the requirement that the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims and defenses of the class since one representative paid a fine and the other one did not.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Before the Court is the Defendant's unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Information with Prejudice (ECF No. 14). For the reasons set forth in the motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED.”
“At this time, IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for Revision, ECF No. 9, is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec. 26) is GRANTED. The undisputed facts reveal that Defendants did not use excessive force against the Plaintiff.”
“Plaintiff's "Motion For Order Granting Leave of Court to Dismiss Indictment Without Prejudice" (Ct. Rec. 34) is GRANTED. The Indictment is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 78, is respectfully DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED, in part, and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for additional proceedings. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 23, is DENIED.”
“the State Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec. 7) is GRANTED and they are DISMISSED from this action. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claims against the State Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice ... State law tort claims against the State Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED and Defendants are awarded judgment on all of the claims pled in Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 9).”
“IT IS ORDERED Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Ct. Rec. 46, filed December 3, 2007 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims and this lawsuit are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion For Sanctions (Ct. Rec. 17) is GRANTED. ... The District Executive is directed to enter a default judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant in the sum of $443,772.00.”
“Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec. 22) is DISMISSED as being moot due to the entry of default judgment as a sanction for Defendant's failure to comply with the "Order Granting Motion To Compel."”
“Defendant's "Supplemental" Motion For Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec. 34) is DENIED”
“Plaintiff's Motion To Strike Affidavit Of William Schroeder (Ct. Rec. 47) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED the Motions for Class Certification (Ct. Rec. 4) and for Appointment of Counsel (Ct. Rec. 5) are DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
As a senior judge since 2013, his current caseload (2021-2024 filings) consists almost entirely of Social Security disability and SSI appeals from the Yakima, Richland/Pasco, and Spokane divisions, reviewed on cross-motions for summary judgment or a stipulated remand. His earlier active-tenure docket (reflected in the published-opinion set above) was a broader general district docket: civil rights, employment, habeas corpus, products liability, insurance, and criminal cases.
Put Judge Suko's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Suko actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Suko's own signed orders and cites them.