David W. Christel
How Judge Christel rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Christel
David W. Christel has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Washington since April 2015. He sits in Tacoma.
Judge Christel's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Christel, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Include a proposed order with stipulations and email its Word version to [email protected].
“send a Word version of the order to [email protected].”
Motions
File an agreed motion using the “stipulated motion” event, rather than as a stipulation, agreed motion, or unopposed motion.
“Stipulated motions should be filed as a ‘stipulated motion’ rather than a ‘stipulation,’ ‘agreed”
Discovery
If using the expedited discovery process under LCR 37(a)(2), file the joint motion under the specified CM/ECF event.
“‘Expedited Joint Motion for Discovery Pursuant to LCR 37(a)(2)’ event.”
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).
- Amended Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Materials Related to Cooperation ↗
- Exhibit Retention Procedures ↗
- Availability and Redaction Policies for Electronically Filed Transcripts ↗
- Social Security Cases ↗
- Immigration Habeas Petitions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ↗
- Amended Provisions for Electronic Case Filing ↗
How Judge Christel decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Owens, Christel found that the ALJ’s recitation of medical evidence did not identify which claimant testimony was inconsistent or why it was discounted.
“In only providing a recitation of the medical evidence, the ALJ failed to identify which testimony is inconsistent or unsupported and why Plaintiff's testimony is not credited based upon the alleged inconsistencies.”
An immediate benefits award may be warranted when the credit-as-true requirements are met and years of repeated administrative errors show that another remand would serve no useful purpose.
“With every remand, the record in the case appears to have become more convoluted with little apparent benefit.”
Procedural preferences
On reversal, he applies the default rule of remanding for further administrative proceedings rather than ordering benefits, except in rare circumstances.
“Generally, when the Court reverses an ALJ's decision, 'the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.'”
A prior remand decision does not necessarily make every accompanying evidentiary observation law of the case when an independent constitutional defect required a new hearing and the earlier observations were not necessary to that result.
“The Court declines to apply the law of the case doctrine here.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, Defendant's decision to deny benefits is reversed and this matter is remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) in accordance with this Order.”
“ORDER signed by Judge David W. Christel. The Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings.”
In a referred self-represented case, Judge Christel recommended denying the application to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissing for failure to state a claim. District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright adopted the recommendation on November 8, 2024.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court REVERSES and REMANDS the decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings, including a de novo hearing before an ALJ that has not previously considered this matter.”
“Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby finds the ALJ did not err in determining that Plaintiff is not disabled, and therefore affirms the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits.”
“Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court accepts Defendant’s concession that the ALJ improperly concluded Plaintiff was not disabled. Accordingly, Defendant’s decision to deny benefits is reversed and this matter is remanded for further administrative proceedings in accordance with the findings contained herein.”
“Accordingly, this matter is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security for an immediate award of benefits.”
“Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby finds the ALJ improperly concluded Plaintiff was not disabled for the period at issue. Accordingly, Defendant’s decision to deny benefits is reversed and this matter is remanded for further administrative proceedings in accordance with the findings contained herein.”
“the Court hereby AFFIRMS Defendant’s decision denying”
“the Court REVERSES and REMANDS the decision”
“the Court REVERSES and REMANDS the decision”
“the Court hereby AFFIRMS Defendant’s decision denying”
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| 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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma), not for Judge Christel: 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 | 2,877 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 684 | 3.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,159 | 6.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 27.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 25.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,877 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,639 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,594 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,303 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,703 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,340 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,536 | 7.6 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 Christel with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Christel, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Christel's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace