Robert H. Whaley
How Judge Whaley rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Whaley
Robert H. Whaley is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Whaley received a commission on June 30, 1995. Judge Whaley assumed senior status on July 12, 2009.
Judge Whaley's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Whaley'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 Whaley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Philip Morris USA Inc. v. King Mountain Tobacco Company, Whaley found a colorable question of tribal-court jurisdiction over the trademark dispute. In the interest of comity and tribal sovereignty, he stayed the federal case to let the tribal court address jurisdiction first.
“Therefore, there exists a colorable question of the existence of tribal court jurisdiction in this case over Philip Morris. In the interest of comity and the promotion of tribal sovereignty, the Court shall abstain from further action in this matter to give the tribal court the opportunity to address the jurisdictional question ... in the first instance.”
In Defenders of Wildlife v. Martin, Whaley held that a Forest Service agreement governing snowmobile-trail grooming was an agency action requiring consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. He granted a preliminary injunction against grooming specified trails pending that consultation.
“the Agreement memorializes USFS's continued discretion to authorize and place conditions on trail grooming within the IPNF. Accordingly, it is an agency action under Section 7(a)(2) which requires consultation.”
Procedural preferences
Facing a case with no action of record for over two years and a plaintiff who had entirely stopped participating in discovery despite repeated accommodations, the judge found dismissal, ordinarily a harsh remedy, was the only option left once no less drastic sanction remained available.
“the Court has already made numerous fruitless efforts to accommodate Plaintiffs' search for counsel. There are no longer any less drastic measures that would be effective here.”
When the government's appeal of one order threatened to force a second, duplicative appeal down the road, the judge resolved the jurisdictional and reconsideration questions immediately rather than deferring them, to avoid years of additional delay.
“A second appeal would further delay the resolution of this case for a minimum of two years. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy and to consolidate appeals, the Court declines to reconsider its order granting the motion to suppress.”
In Amanda S. v. O'Malley, Whaley reviewed an unopposed magistrate judge's recommendation, found its conclusions correct, and adopted it in full. He reversed the benefits denial and remanded for calculation and award of benefits.
“No objections were filed. After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's findings are correct. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.”
Cautions
In the J & J Smokeshop property-seizure case, Whaley denied reconsideration of his refusal to order the property returned because the forfeiture provision the claimant invoked did not apply to property retained as evidence.
“a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Ct. Rec. 2) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for a TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction (Ct. Rec. 35) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Ct. Rec. 45) is GRANTED.”
“The parties' Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (Ct. Rec. 18) is GRANTED. The above-captioned case is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs to the parties.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion/Declaration re: Continuance of Motion and Trial (Ct. Rec. 41) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' F.R.C.P. 41(b) and/or 37(b) Motion for Involuntary Dismissal / Sanctions (Ct. Rec. 35) is GRANTED. The Complaint in the above-captioned matter is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Violation of Statute of Limitations (Ct. Rec. 34) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery (Ct. Rec. 38) is DENIED with leave to renew.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for the calculation and award of benefits.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12, is DENIED.”
“Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Ct. Rec. 12) is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g).”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for 1) an immediate calculation of benefits for the childhood disability claim; and 2) further proceedings as of age 18.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Time Reduction by an Inmate in Federal Custody Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (Ct. Rec. 86) is DENIED.”
“The Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Civil Forfeiture Complaint, ECF No. 27, is GRANTED. The above entitled action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The parties' Stipulated Motion for Remand, ECF No. 24, is GRANTED. ... the above-captioned case be REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceeding pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g).”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17, is STRICKEN AS MOOT.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 378 days (N = 9).
- The judge's current docket is concentrated almost entirely in Social Security disability appeals referred to and initially handled by magistrate judges, with the judge entering the final order adopting (or, on stipulation, directly ordering) a remand or affirmance and closing the file.
- Nearly all sampled Social Security appeals ended in a remand to the agency rather than an outright affirmance, and several were followed by a separate motion for attorney's fees and costs, which the judge also decided.
- Historical filings from earlier in his tenure (2005-2016) show a broader civil and criminal caseload, including trademark, environmental, tribal-sovereignty, habeas, and forfeiture matters.
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 | 40 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| 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.
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 Whaley: 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 Whaley with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Whaley, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Whaley's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace