J. Richard Creatura
How Judge Creatura rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Creatura
J. Richard Creatura is a recalled United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Washington. He began full-time service in March 2009 and now serves part time on recall. He earned a B.A. from Tufts University in 1974 and a J.D. from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, in 1978.
Judge Creatura's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Creatura, 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
When Judge Creatura presides over a Social Security case filed from September 2019, do not provide paper or CD courtesy copies of the administrative record.
“in Social Security cases filed beginning September 1, 2019, no paper or CD courtesy copies of the Administrative Record shall be filed for Judge Creatura’s chambers.”
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 Creatura decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Denison v. Colvin, he found that the administrative law judge confused objective medical evidence with the claimant’s subjective reports and erred in rejecting a medical opinion.
“As substantial evidence in the record is lacking for this finding, and as the ALJ explicitly confused objective evidence with plaintiff’s subjective reports, the ALJ erred by rejecting the medical opinion.”
In Tate v. Colvin, he reversed and remanded a Social Security appeal after finding that the administrative law judge wrongly treated fatigue as something other than a medical diagnosis and used that premise to reject a treating physician's opinions about the claimant's mental limitations.
“the Court concludes that the ALJ erred by concluding that fatigue is not a medical diagnosis and by relying on this erroneous conclusion in order to reject a treating physician’s opinions regarding the mental limitations resulting from fatigue.”
Procedural preferences
In Maurice v. Astrue, he affirmed the agency after finding that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.
“After carefully reviewing the matter, the court finds that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free of any legal error. The court AFFIRMS the administrative decision.”
In Johnson v. Astrue, Creatura approved a stipulated remand order that required the administrative law judge to update the record about the claimant's impairments and take other specified steps during further proceedings.
“it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned case be reversed and remanded, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings, including, but not limited to, the following actions: the administrative law judge (ALJ) will update the record regarding Plaintiff’s impairments”
In Holland v. Astrue, after finding that the claimant had not served the Attorney General, he set a deadline to cure that service defect and warned that otherwise he would recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute.
“plaintiff is hereby notified that proof of service, curing the deficiency noted above, must be filed with the court by not later than May 17, 2010. Otherwise, the court will recommend dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute the matter.”
Cautions
In Lawson v. Astrue, he granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss a Social Security appeal filed outside the 60-day window under 42 U.S.C. section 405(g); the claimant had not responded to the timeliness challenge.
“Section 405(g) clearly states that an individual seeking judicial review of the Secretary's final administrative decision is required to file such action with the court ‘within sixty (60) days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may allow.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“After carefully reviewing the matter, the court finds that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free of any legal error. The court AFFIRMS the administrative decision.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned case be reversed and remanded, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings”
“Based on the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned case be REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“Based on the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned case be REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“it is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision in regard to Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits under Title II and XVI of the Social Security Act be REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“ORDER that the Court AFFIRMS the Social Security Administration's final decision. Signed by Judge J Richard Creatura.”
“ORDER granting 15 Stipulated Motion to Remand by Judge J Richard Creatura.”
“ORDER FOR REMAND, granting 18 Stipulated Motion for Remand by Judge J Richard Creatura.”
“This matter has been briefed, and after reviewing the record, the undersigned finds no legal error in the administrative law judge’s decision and substantial evidence in the record supporting the decision denying plaintiff’s application for social security benefits. Accordingly, the Court affirms the administrative decision.”
“ORDER granting 11 Stipulated Motion to Remand by Judge J Richard Creatura.”
“ORDER AFFIRMING Administrative Decision. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.”
“ORDER to REMAND to the administration for further consideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.”
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 | 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 2026 | 0 | 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 Creatura: 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 Creatura with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Creatura, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Creatura's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace