Stanley A. Bastian
How Judge Bastian rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bastian
Stanley Allen Bastian is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Bastian received a commission on May 1, 2014.
Judge Bastian's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Bastian'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 Bastian decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In municipal-liability (Monell) claims, isolated lapses in equipment or training, even if real, do not establish the 'longstanding practice or custom' needed for liability absent evidence of duration, frequency, and consistency.
“it is evident the failure to provide PPE was an ‘isolated’ incident and not founded upon practices of ‘sufficient duration, frequency and consistency that the conduct has become a traditional method of carrying out policy.’”
Procedural preferences
After resolving all federal claims in this case, he declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remanded the case to state court.
“Having disposed of the federal claims in this action, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, the case is remanded to state court for further proceedings.”
In a discovery dispute, he refused a broad protective order covering categories of confidential material where it largely formalized the parties’ private agreement. He invited targeted sealing or redaction requests when particular materials are filed with the court.
“the Court will not be party to such an agreement.”
Cautions
In a pro se summary-judgment case, he addressed the motion on the available record despite the plaintiff’s failure to respond.
“Although the Court could arguably grant the motion for summary judgment under LR 7.1(d), the Court will address the motion on the merits, with the facts available in the record.”
For a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, he granted protection where the notice named the agency investigator rather than the agency and the requesting party had not shown relevant nonprivileged information unavailable by other means. Draft the notice so the organization chooses its witness and explain the specific information sought.
“person it wished to depose. This is not proper under the Rule.”
In a defamation and business-loss suit, he dismissed the complaint with prejudice after two amendments because alleged online posts were not tied by pleaded facts to lost employment or business revenue. A numerical decline alone did not supply the missing causal link.
“absolutely zero asserted facts to support this conclusion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The United States of America's Motion to Dismiss Indictment, ECF No. 33, is GRANTED. ... The above-captioned case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated above, as well as the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is denied.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 51, is GRANTED.”
“1. The City Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED, in part. 2. The State Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 37, is GRANTED, in part.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56, ECF No. 17, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED.”
“Defendants Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland and Zurich American Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 134, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 15, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 43, is GRANTED.”
“Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Defendant's Motion for Resentencing, ECF No. 93, and Amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence, ECF No. 98, are DENIED.”
“Defendant's First Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 56, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Strike Surplusage, ECF No. 75, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 76, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and Observations, ECF No. 120, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Oral Ruling re: Emergency Exception to the Warrant Requirement, ECF No. 134, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Prohibit Rule 404(b) Evidence, ECF No. 135, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, ECF No. 8, is DENIED as moot.”
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 9 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 2 |
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 Bastian: 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 Bastian with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bastian, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bastian's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace