Thomas O. Rice
How Judge Rice rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rice
Thomas Owen Rice is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Rice received a commission on March 8, 2012.
Judge Rice's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Rice'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 Rice decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a civil-RICO claim built on a private union carrying out an otherwise-legitimate dues-withholding scheme by allegedly fraudulent means, the plaintiff must still plead concrete facts showing the union directed or knew of the underlying fraud: a handful of isolated incidents will not establish a RICO 'enterprise.'
“Plaintiff here has described only four incidents of alleged fraudulent activity. Plaintiff does not assert what knowledge Union Defendants possessed of the forged signatures or that they directed employees to forge signatures to achieve a certain purpose.”
In an attorney fee contract dispute, he granted liability-only summary judgment after finding no consideration for an asserted contract modification and no genuine factual dispute about nonpayment. He left damages for later decision.
“there was no consideration for the modification”
Procedural preferences
After dismissing all federal claims in this case, he declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
“Having dismissed all federal law claims in this matter, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.”
In a case retaining a federal constitutional claim, he declined to remand related state claims where the plaintiffs had not addressed the supplemental-jurisdiction factors and the claims arose from the same conduct.
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand or Abstention, ECF No. 3, is DENIED.”
Cautions
A plaintiff cannot base standing for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief on the mere theoretical possibility that discontinued conduct could resume: the alleged threat must be more than speculative.
“Plaintiff does not present any facts from which the Court could infer State Defendants are likely to resume deducting dues from Plaintiff's wages. Plaintiff's claim is purely speculative and unsupported, and it is insufficient to establish a harm that is actual or imminent.”
After granting a new trial in an employment case, he kept punitive damages out of the retrial because he had already found no evidentiary basis for that award and the issue was separable. A party seeking to revive that damages issue would need new grounds addressing the earlier ruling.
“need to be relitigated. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is granted.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“A Motion for Summary Judgment is not appropriate in this closed case. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot.”
“State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. The claims asserted against Defendants Don Clintsman and Governor Jay Inslee in Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Union Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED. The claims asserted against Service Employees International Union Local 775 and Service Employees International Union are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED. Judgment is entered for Defendant.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED in part. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), Defendants ... are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from: ‘altering the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of Mifepristone under the current operative January 2023 Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy under 21 U.S.C. § 355-1 in Plaintiff States.’”
“Third Parties' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (ECF No. 52) is DENIED.”
“Third Parties' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief (ECF No. 69) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (ECF No. 243) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict (ECF No. 230) is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Proposed Judgment (ECF No. 247) is GRANTED in part. Defendant is ordered to pay post-judgment interest from the day the judgment is entered according to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, at 4.29% per annum.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 15, is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and Alternatively, Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 86) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 87) is GRANTED. The parties are allowed until November 1, 2017 to file any remaining dispositive motions.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 88) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 3; 19) are denied.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Re Spoliation (ECF No. 23) is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Plaintiff's Claim for Lost Wages (ECF No. 30) is DENIED as moot”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff's Daubert Motion to Exclude Expert Opinion of Dr. Janet Barry (ECF No. 35) is DENIED as moot”
“Defendant's Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Scott Menard (ECF No. 38) is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 10), converted to a request for a Permanent Injunction, is DENIED. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Petitioner Cody Kloepper's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF Nos. 1; 5) is DENIED. Judgment is entered for Respondent.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 9, is DENIED.”
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 | 11 |
| 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 11 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 10 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Rice: 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 Rice with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rice, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rice's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace