James Donald Peterson
How Judge Peterson rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Peterson
James Donald Peterson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Peterson received a commission on May 12, 2014.
Judge Peterson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Peterson, 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
For summary judgment, parties must put the necessary facts in properly supported proposed findings because the court will not search the record for facts or evidence.
“The court will not search the record for facts or evidence.”
Trial
Unless the court directs otherwise, each party must submit trial-exhibit copies by 4:00 p.m. on the business day before trial.
“Unless otherwise directed by the court, each party must submit copies of its trial exhibits by 4:00 p.m. on the business day before the first day of trial (note that in many cases, this may be a Friday).”
Trial
Parties, lawyers, and anyone acting for a party must obtain permission before contacting jurors.
“must obtain permission from the trial judge or magistrate judge before contacting jurors.”
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).
- In Re: Standing Order Governing the Use and Submission of Electronic Evidence (Administrative Order 434) ↗
- In Re: Procedures for the Filing, Service and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents (Administrative Order 453) ↗
- Amended General Rules for Filing Documents Under Seal (Administrative Order 460) ↗
How Judge Peterson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In SSI Technologies v. Dongguan Zhengyang, he granted partial summary judgment that the accused sensor did not infringe the listed claims of two patents.
“DZEM’s motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 98, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: a. The DZEM sensor does not infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 of the ’153 patent. b. The DZEM sensor does not infringe claims 9–13 and 18 of the ’038 patent.”
Procedural preferences
In Hamilton v. Prime Communications, he denied the store's summary judgment motion in a negligence suit over a customer's fall.
“IT IS ORDERED that Prime Communications’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 24, is DENIED.”
In Mezu-Ndubuisi v. University of Wisconsin, he granted the defendants' dismissal motions in part and denied them in part.
“The defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dkt. 65 and Dkt. 67, are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
An unopposed summary-judgment motion does not win automatically. He treats supported facts as undisputed but still draws reasonable inferences for the non-movant and independently decides whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
“Maholmes did not oppose the motions. Under those circumstances, I treat defendants’ version of the facts as undisputed, but I must still draw all reasonable inferences in Maholmes’s favor and decide whether defendants have shown that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
In Ammerman v. Sukowaty, he found that the prisoner raised legitimate objections to the scope and redisclosure language of a medical-records authorization.
“Ammerman raises legitimate objections to the scope of records sought to be released and the ambiguous language in the redisclosure”
In a disability appeal, Judge Peterson ordered a remand after finding that the administrative law judge had not adequately explained the claimant’s symptom assessment or considered the functional effect of his hip pain.
“The court will remand the case so that the ALJ can further consider Venet’s reported symptoms.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that Prime Communications’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 24, is DENIED.”
“Defendant Catholic Charities, Inc., Diocese of Madison’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 27, is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss as a sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order, Dkt. 25, is DENIED as moot.”
“The defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dkt. 65 and Dkt. 67, are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Plaintiff’s other claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Dkt. 35, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Burgess’s motion for assistance in recruiting counsel, Dkt. 40, is DENIED.”
“SSI’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 92, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. DZEM’s tortious-interference counterclaim is DISMISSED. The remainder of SSI’s motion is DENIED.”
“DZEM’s motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 98, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: a. The DZEM sensor does not infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 of the ’153 patent. b. The DZEM sensor does not infringe claims 9–13 and 18 of the ’038 patent.”
“The state of Wisconsin’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 16, is GRANTED. The state is DISMISSED from the case.”
“The Dane County defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. 25, is GRANTED. Defendants Dane County and Kalvin Barrett are DISMISSED from the case.”
“The village defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 21, is GRANTED in part; defendants Bierman, Schaub, and village of Oregon are DISMISSED from the case.”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 24, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendant Caine Transfer Inc.’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 6, is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendant Shutter Zone Media LLC’s motions to dismiss, Dkt. 7 and Dkt. 13, are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Eternix Ltd.’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 100, is GRANTED in part for defendant CivilGEO as described in Dkt. 176.”
“CivilGEO’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 95, is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Yves Aubert’s petition for return of his two minor children to Norway under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 31, is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed assignments include patent, civil-rights, employment, contract, false-claims, habeas, and criminal matters. They illustrate the variety of Peterson's docket but do not constitute a complete census.
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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 23 | 13 |
| Mar 2025 | 6 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 14 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 11 | 8 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 8 | 14 |
| Sep 2022 | 24 | 17 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 14 |
| Sep 2021 | 18 | 15 |
| Mar 2021 | 16 | 18 |
| Sep 2020 | 24 | 18 |
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 United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, not for Judge Peterson: 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 | 545 | 6.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 188 | 2.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 169 | 6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 174 | 13.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 26.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 545 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 526 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 614 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 633 | 10 months |
| Sep 2021 | 675 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 707 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 657 | 7.8 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 Peterson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Peterson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Peterson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace