William Fremming Nielsen
Judge Nielsen no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Nielsen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a collateral challenge to an underlying deportation, the judge focuses on whether the immigration judge's error deprived the defendant of a genuinely available form of discretionary relief, and requires only a plausible (not certain) basis for relief to find prejudice.
“The Defendant has demonstrated that his due process rights were violated by defects in his underlying deportation proceeding and that he suffered prejudice as a result. The July 20, 2001 deportation cannot serve as a predicate element for the illegal reentry offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.”
Reading a state decriminalization statute, the judge follows the plain, literal text even against the government's narrower reading, reasoning that a broader term (use) logically cannot exclude the narrower conduct (possession) it depends on.
“The medical marijuana statute clearly indicates that use of medical marijuana does not constitute a crime. Reading "use" to exclude possession, delivery, or manufacture would be in contravention to the entirety of the statute. It is impossible to imagine a scenario where a person could use without possessing.”
Procedural preferences
On ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, the judge looks for whether the record actually shows counsel investigated the option the defendant says was ignored, and will defer to a strategic decision to trade a viable motion for a favorable plea rather than assume the motion would have won.
“Contrary to Mr. Peterson's assertions, there is no guarantee that the Court would have granted the Motion to Suppress Evidence. His counsel made a sound decision to use the possibility that the Court could toss out the SD card to negotiate a plea deal that weighed heavily in Mr. Peterson's favor.”
In Social Security appeals the judge reads the ALJ's characterization of the medical record closely for accuracy and requires specific, clear, and convincing reasons before discounting a claimant's own testimony; when those are missing, the default remedy is a remand for further proceedings rather than an immediate award of benefits, since reweighing evidence in the first instance is the agency's job, not the court's.
“Such a remand should be granted only in a rare case and this is not such a case. The medical evidence and Plaintiff's testimony must be reweighed and this is a function the Court cannot perform in the first instance on appeal. Further proceedings are thus not only helpful but necessary.”
Cautions
On compassionate-release motions, the judge treats rehabilitation and general prison conditions as insufficient on their own, and weighs the seriousness of the underlying offense and the defendant's criminal history heavily against release.
“Rehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason. ... Considering the seriousness of Mr. Storro's crime and his extensive criminal history, the need to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public all weigh against reducing Mr. Storro's sentence.”
In employment-discrimination summary-judgment motions, the judge sets a real floor for what counts as an adverse employment action: a supervisor's added scrutiny or a schedule change that costs no pay or benefits is not enough, even where the employee experienced it as unfair.
“the Court concludes that Mr. Darrah's change in assembly point, requiring him to drive an additional 23.1 miles each way, without giving him poor performance ratings, transferring him to another job or changing his pay, is not in itself enough to rise to the level of an adverse employment action.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, Ct. Rec. 23, is GRANTED. 2. The Indictment is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Agreed Motion to Dismiss, filed May 19, 2014, ECF No. 3467, is GRANTED. The claims of Plaintiffs Ethel Mary Burchell, Rheta Foland, Donald Harper, Winnie McLean, Charles Powell, Polly Faye Powell, Betty Prophet, Truman H. Quinn, Benjamin Sorenson, and Della Townsend are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December 27, 2011, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Government's Motion for Reconsideration, filed June 6, 2012, ECF No. 202, is GRANTED. The Court reconsidered the initial ruling to Defendants' Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 157. ... The Court's initial ruling on Defendant's Motion to Suppress, memorialized in ECF No. 186, is AFFIRMED.”
“The Government's Motion to Expedite Hearing, filed June 6, 2012, ECF No. 204, is GRANTED. The underlying Motion was considered on an expedited basis.”
“Defendant Barraza Zazueta's Motion to Sever Defendants, filed September 13, 2013, ECF No. 59, is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Godinez's Motion to Sever, filed September 13, 2013, ECF No. 62, is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Discovery, filed September 13, 2013, ECF No. 57, is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Production of 404(b) and 609 Evidence, filed September 13, 2013, ECF No. 64, is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“The Government's Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Quash Warrant, filed December 16, 2015, ECF No. 30, is GRANTED. The Indictment in the above-referenced case shall be DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Shevchenko's Petition to Reconsider Petitioner's Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(6) and in light of New Fast Track Program and the Second Chance Act in Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §3621(a) and in Pursuant to Section 3624(b)(c)(2), filed August 15, 2016, ECF No. 140, is DENIED. This should not hinder Mr. Shevchenko's ability to file a similar motion in the court of jurisdiction for such claims.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Peterson's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed January 11, 2017, ECF No. 64, is DENIED.”
“Based on the Court's preceding analysis, the Court concludes that jurists of reason would not differ with the Court's conclusion. Thus a certificate of appealability should not issue.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Request for Compassionate Release Under the Care Act 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), filed May 27, 2020, ECF No. 4533, is DENIED.”
“1. Plaintiff's Brief, filed April 5, 2023, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED IN PART. ... 3. The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for additional proceedings consistent with this Order.”
“2. Defendant's Brief, filed May 8, 2023, ECF No. 12, is DENIED.”
“Mr. Storro's pro se Motion for Compassionate Release/Sentence Reduction, filed March 10, 2023, ECF No. 422, is DENIED.”
“1. Plaintiff's Brief, filed September 13, 2023, ECF No. 8, is DENIED.”
“2. Defendant's Brief, filed October 13, 2023, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. ... the Commissioner's final decision is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 72 days (N = 9).
By his final years on senior status, the judge's docket was concentrated in Social Security disability appeals and Section 2255 post-conviction motions (the latter often filed as statistical-purposes-only civil shells cross-referenced to the underlying criminal case). Earlier in his career the docket included a broader civil and criminal caseload, including the decades-long Hanford Nuclear Reservation mass-tort litigation. At least one case that remained open after his own rulings (a Social Security fee dispute) was administratively reassigned to another judge in January 2026, consistent with his inactive status.
A historical record
Judge Nielsen no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.