William Fremming Nielsen
How Judge Nielsen rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Nielsen no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Nielsen
Wm. Fremming Nielsen served on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington after receiving his commission on May 14, 1991. He served as chief judge from 1995 to 2000 and assumed senior status on May 30, 2003. He took inactive senior status on May 31, 2024.
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 United States v. Mojica-Linos, Nielsen held that defects in the defendant's underlying deportation violated due process and caused prejudice. He dismissed the illegal-reentry indictment without prejudice because that deportation could not serve as a predicate for the charge.
“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.”
In a medical-marijuana case, he read the state statute’s reference to “use” as including possession because use without possession was impossible.
“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
In Peterson v. United States, he rejected an ineffective-assistance claim after finding that counsel had filed a suppression motion and used its possible success to negotiate a favorable plea. He also found no guarantee that the suppression motion would have succeeded.
“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 Emily M. v. O'Malley, Nielsen reversed a Social Security benefits denial and remanded for further proceedings. He found that the medical evidence and claimant's testimony needed to be reweighed by the agency in the first instance, rather than awarding benefits immediately.
“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
In Storro’s compassionate-release case, he denied a sentence reduction after finding no extraordinary and compelling reason and weighing the seriousness of the offense and the defendant’s criminal history against release.
“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 Darrah v. Salazar, Nielsen found that moving an employee's assembly point and adding 23.1 miles to his commute, without changing his job, pay, or performance rating, did not itself amount to an adverse employment action. He granted summary judgment for the employer.
“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.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Nielsen was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2024.
| 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 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| 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.
A historical record
Judge Nielsen 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.