Jamal N. Whitehead
How Judge Whitehead rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Whitehead
Jamal Norman Whitehead is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Whitehead received a commission on March 14, 2023.
Judge Whitehead's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Whitehead, 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
Motions
File criminal motions, including trial continuance motions, at least 28 days before trial.
“All motions, including motions to continue the trial date, must be made no later than 28 days before trial.”
Discovery
In civil cases, confer and exhaust reasonable alternatives before filing a discovery motion.
“Before filing a discovery motion, parties must meet and confer and exhaust all reasonable alternatives to a formal motion.”
Discovery
A civil discovery motion filed without good faith conferral may be denied or stricken.
“The Court will deny or strike a discovery motion for failure to meet and confer in good faith.”
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 Whitehead decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Pacito v. Trump, Whitehead found that parts of an executive order would effectively nullify a congressionally established refugee program and granted a preliminary injunction against implementing those provisions.
“Where, as here, Presidential action effectively nullifies a congressionally established program, causing irreparable harm to vulnerable individuals and organizations, judicial intervention becomes necessary to preserve the separation of powers our Constitution demands.”
In reviewing an ERISA withdrawal-liability arbitration, Whitehead applied binding circuit precedent to the plan's actual and anticipated experience and declined to create a funding-status exception absent statutory support. City of Tacoma v. Western Metal Industry Pension Fund, Dkt. 22 (2025-05-28).
“The Court cannot create an exception that would undermine the clear statutory requirement that the actuarial assumptions used to calculate withdrawal liability reflect the anticipated experience of the plan.”
In a public-safety religious-accommodation case, unrebutted expert evidence and the aggregate operational burden of accommodating more than eighty unvaccinated deputies supported summary judgment on undue hardship. Eshom v. King County, Dkt. 64 (2025-11-14).
“The County has thus established that any accommodation would have resulted in an undue hardship.”
In a class-action remand, the court required a causal link between payroll transactions and claimed underpayments before treating aggregate payment data or a mediation demand as proof of the amount in controversy. Sapphire v. Fred Meyer Stores Inc., Dkt. 16 (2024-09-27).
“because Fred Meyer presents no other evidence about amount in controversy”
At the pleading stage of a trafficking beneficiary-liability case, specific allegations that hotel staff acted as lookouts and ignored signs of abuse supported a claim against the hotel operator. R.T. v. RRI West Management LLC, Dkt. 28 (2025-03-31).
“hotel staff were not merely bystanders but actively”
Procedural preferences
In Pacito v. Trump, Whitehead found that the plaintiffs met all four Winter factors for a preliminary injunction.
“As explained below, all four Winter factors are met here.”
In Langworthy v. Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Whitehead gave the self-represented plaintiff leave to amend and warned that missing the deadline would result in dismissal without prejudice.
“Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.”
In International Mezzo, the court declined a blanket request to amend after a partly successful pleadings motion. It required a separate motion with a proposed complaint to assess futility and later allowed four proposed counts while rejecting another.
“grant blanket leave to amend based on such barebones submissions.”
In Novelozo v. Port of Seattle, Whitehead allowed a self-represented employment plaintiff to amend because the record showed no bad faith and the defendant claimed no prejudice; the pending dismissal motion became moot.
“Here, there is no evidence of bad faith, and the Port of Seattle raises no claim of prejudice.”
Cautions
Even after describing a pension plan's arguments as close to frivolous, Whitehead declined an ERISA fee award because the precedent was relatively recent, he found no bad faith, and the burden would fall on an underfunded plan's beneficiaries. City of Tacoma v. Western Metal Industry Pension Fund, Dkt. 22 (2025-05-28).
“The Court does not find bad faith. The Court also declines to impose a new financial burden on an already-underfunded pension plan whose beneficiaries have played no role in this dispute.”
In the Agave trademark dispute, Whitehead twice denied default judgment despite the defendant’s nonappearance because the pleaded allegations did not support the requested cybersquatting judgment.
“the Eitel factors do not support entering default judgment against Host Master 1337 on Plaintiffs’ ACPA claim”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. No. 14, is GRANTED. Implementation of Sections 3(a), (b), and (c), and Section 4 of Executive Order 14163 is enjoined.”
After screening a pro se complaint, Whitehead gave the plaintiff leave to amend and warned that failure to do so 'will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.' When no compliant amended complaint followed, he dismissed the case without prejudice. This sua sponte screening disposition did not resolve a party motion and illustrates his Section 1915 workflow.
The motion-to-dismiss order in this assigned case was signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman, not Judge Whitehead. It is included only to distinguish the signer and is not counted among Whitehead’s outcomes.
“In sum, the Court GRANTS the City’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 17, DENIES the Plan’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 18; DENIES the City’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs; AFFIRMS the arbitration award”
“Defendant’s motions for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 28 (Case No. 2:24-cv-00007) and Dkt. No. 49 (Case No. 2:23-cv-00028), are GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendant’s motions to exclude Plaintiff’s expert, Dkt. No. 26 (Case No. 2:24-cv-00007) and Dkt. No. 47 (Case No. 2:23-cv-00028), are DENIED as moot.”
“Defendant’s motion for sanctions, Dkt. No. 52 (Case No. 2:24-cv-00007), is DENIED as moot.”
“The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner's motion for injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 4”
“Singh's motion for a temporary restraining order asking the Court to enjoin Respondents from removing Singh or transferring him outside of this jurisdiction while this habeas petition is pending, Dkt. No. 8 , is DENIED as MOOT.”
“The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED, Dkt. No. 1”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES RRI West’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 21.”
The court found the self-represented complaint insufficient under the pleading rules but gave the plaintiff thirty days to amend, after earlier failures to serve the defendants and comply with scheduling orders. No party motion was resolved.
After the plaintiff did not file the amended complaint allowed in the prior screening order, the court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim. No party motion was resolved.
“Counts 4–9 are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“In sum, the Court GRANTS in part Mezzo’s motion to amend, Dkt. No. 92.”
“cross-motion 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 | 5 |
| 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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 5 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 12 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 8 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 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 (Seattle), not for Judge Whitehead: 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 Whitehead with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Whitehead, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Whitehead's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace