Rosanna Malouf Peterson
How Judge Peterson rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Peterson no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Peterson
Rosanna Malouf Peterson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Peterson received a commission on January 26, 2010. Judge Peterson assumed senior status on October 1, 2021.
How Judge Peterson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At the motion-to-dismiss stage, contemporaneous statements by senior administration officials, not just the named decisionmaker, can support an inference of discriminatory purpose sufficient to let an equal-protection claim survive, even against a facially neutral rule.
“The Court finds that all of these statements, made by high-level officials in the Administration contemporaneous with DHS's finalizing the Public Charge Rule, can reasonably be interpreted as supporting an animus toward nonwhite immigrants.”
In Washington Potato Company v. J.R. Simplot Company, Peterson denied a preliminary injunction sought to preserve the defendant's ownership interest in a joint venture. She found that the asserted harm was speculative and generally compensable with money damages.
“Rather, the irreparable harm that Defendant alleges is speculative and generally of a nature that can be reduced to monetary damages should Defendant prevail on the merits.”
In State of Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Peterson issued nationwide relief after finding that an injunction limited to the Ninth Circuit would leave eleven plaintiff states without protection from the alleged harm.
“a Ninth Circuit-only injunction would deprive eleven of the fourteen Plaintiff States any relief at all... and would derive no protection from irreparable injury from relief limited to jurisdictions within the Ninth Circuit.”
Procedural preferences
In Smith v. Kittitas County Veterans Coalition, she continued the response and hearing dates on a pro se plaintiff's summary-judgment motion after finding that it omitted information required by the local rules. The order did not decide the motion's merits.
“Plaintiff failed to provide in the motion any of the information required by Local Rule 7.1, such as 'supporting factual assertions and legal authority,' and failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1”
In United States v. Hunt, she granted the government's motion to dismiss an indictment without prejudice and rejected a defendant's request for dismissal with prejudice, finding no prejudice to the defendants, due-process violation, or harassment.
“The Court finds no basis to conclude that the Defendants are prejudiced or that the Government's actions violate the Defendants' due process rights or rise to a level of harassment.”
In Guilliams v. Spokane County Jail, she gave the plaintiff 60 days to amend or voluntarily dismiss his complaint, warning that otherwise he risked dismissal and a strike.
“Plaintiff may file within 60 days of the date of this order an amended complaint or attached motion to voluntarily dismiss complaint or risk dismissal and a 'strike' under 28 USC 1915(g).”
Cautions
In Genoway v. Washington State Department of Corrections Staff, she limited the pro se plaintiff's future motions to five pages and one supporting document of at most twenty pages, warning that filings exceeding those limits without permission would be stricken.
“Plaintiff shall limit any future motion to five pages, with only one supporting document which shall not exceed twenty pages. If Plaintiff exceeds these limitations, without express written permission from this Court, his documents will be stricken.”
In a section 2255 tolling request, she found that the defendant had not shown diligence before the limitations period expired and was able to file during the alleged prison lockdown.
“Defendant fails to show that he diligently pursued his rights before the statute of limitations expired, and he was able to file his motion for prospective equitable tolling during the alleged prison lockdown period.”
In Doney v. Uttecht, Peterson granted summary judgment for a prison superintendent in a challenge to COVID-era restrictions on Native American religious practices. She also found qualified immunity because the prisoner had not shown that his free-exercise right was clearly established in that novel context.
“Regardless of the legitimacy of this penological interest, Defendant also is entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that his free exercise right was ‘clearly established’ under the novel context presented in this case.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Government's oral motion to dismiss the indictment is GRANTED.”
“The Government's Motion to Dismiss Indictment without Prejudice, ECF No. 82, and Motion to Expedite, ECF No. 83, are GRANTED.”
“the Court has no basis for granting Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(b).”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for Immediate Release from Custody, ECF No. 146, is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's pro se Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 95, is DENIED”
“The Government's Motion in Limine re: Self-Authenticating Documents, ECF No. 75, is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (Ct. Rec. 82) is GRANTED... The indictment is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 92, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice, ECF No. 82, is DENIED.”
“The Court now grants Sims's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and dismisses Bow Jax's disparagement claim.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 14 is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED IN PART... Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, is... denied... This case is REMANDED for a de novo hearing before the Social Security Administration.”
“Defendant's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 21, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's ‘Motion to Order Show Cause for an [sic] Preliminary Injunction @ a Temporary Restraining Order,’ ECF No. 11, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 12, is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 300 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 183 days (N = 5).
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Peterson was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2025.
| 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 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Peterson 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.