Stanley A. Bastian

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 18 signed orders read

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

Once all federal claims are dismissed or resolved, routinely declines supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remands rather than retaining them.

“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.”

Cautions

A pro se plaintiff's failure to respond to a dispositive motion, or to a court's order to show cause, does not automatically doom the case -- the court will still reach the merits on the existing record rather than granting by default.

“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.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. Waldron
1:20-CR-02037-SAB · 2022-06-07
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted

“The United States of America's Motion to Dismiss Indictment, ECF No. 33, is GRANTED. ... The above-captioned case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Sanning v. Board of Trustees of Whitman College
4:15-cv-05055-SAB · 2015-12-09
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“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.”

Magallan v. Cawley
4:14-cv-05109-SAB · 2016-01-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 51, is GRANTED.”

Mayer v. State of Washington
2:21-CV-00269-SAB · 2022-11-03
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Valencia Magana v. Udell
1:23-CV-03041-SAB · 2024-01-25
Summary judgment (defendant) 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.”

Montano v. The Dentists Insurance Company
2:23-cv-00369 · 2024-07-31
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56, ECF No. 17, is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED.”

Sterling and Wilson Solar Solutions, Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
1:22-cv-03076 · 2024-05-21
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendants Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland and Zurich American Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 134, is DENIED.”

Young v. Vintage Stock Inc
2:23-cv-00296 · 2024-03-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 15, is DENIED.”

Schultz v. Avenue5 Residential, LLC
2:23-cv-00088 · 2025-08-22
Class certification (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 43, is GRANTED.”

United States v. Lane Wyman
2:99-cr-02009 · 2017-08-04
Habeas petition (defendant) Denied

“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.”

United States v. Samantha Marie Tainewasher
1:21-cr-02029 · 2022-08-01
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's First Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 56, is DENIED.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's Motion to Strike Surplusage, ECF No. 75, is DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 76, is DENIED.”

Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and Observations, ECF No. 120, is DENIED.”

Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Oral Ruling re: Emergency Exception to the Warrant Requirement, ECF No. 134, is DENIED.”

Motion in limine (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's Motion to Prohibit Rule 404(b) Evidence, ECF No. 135, is DENIED.”

Topp Creek Farms, LLC v. Rural Community Insurance Company
1:18-cv-03056 · 2018-06-11
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED.”

Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, ECF No. 8, is DENIED as moot.”

Put Judge Bastian's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Bastian actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Bastian's own signed orders and cites them.