Thomas E. Johnston
How Judge Johnston rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Johnston
Thomas E. Johnston is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Johnston received a commission on April 17, 2006.
Judge Johnston's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Johnston's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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).
How Judge Johnston decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Logan Coal & Timber Corp. v. Kinzer Business Realty, Johnston denied a set-off request after the movant failed to brief it before a court-ordered property sale despite an opportunity to do so. He treated that inaction as a waiver of the set-off claim.
“Plaintiff waived its right to seek a set-off by not briefing the issue when given the chance to do so... The Court thus finds that Plaintiff's inaction amounts to a waiver of the right and Plaintiff cannot now seek a set-off.”
In Jones v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Johnston denied remand after finding that an expert report had not given unequivocal notice that the case was removable. The report did not start the 30-day removal period.
“such notice of removability 'ought to be unequivocal' and 'should not be one which may have a double design.'”
In Cruz-Cruz v. Venturella, Johnston granted a habeas petition, ordered the petitioners’ release from immigration custody, and criticized the government for repeating arguments that the court had rejected in earlier cases.
“Yet, the Government's unconstitutional practices and meritless arguments persist... The copy and paste response of the same, rejected arguments erodes the public trust in the Government attorneys tasked with upholding the rule of law.”
In Long v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Johnston rejected the servicer's argument that a prior class settlement barred the plaintiff's claims. Nationstar had not shown that notice to this plaintiff satisfied due process or that the plaintiff appeared on the class mailing lists.
“Nationstar has provided no evidence that the settlement notice--that is, the notice to Plaintiff specifically--meets due process requirements. Nationstar has submitted no evidence that Plaintiff's name and address were included on the mailing lists of absent class members.”
In a voter-records demand case, the judge required the written request itself to state facts supporting the demand. A citation to the statute and a general wish to assess list maintenance did not supply that factual basis.
“The demand includes no indication that West Virginia is suspected to be noncompliant with the list maintenance requirements of HAVA or the NVRA, nor does it point to any anomalies in West Virginia’s voter registration data.”
Procedural preferences
In Cochran v. Newrez LLC, Johnston remanded a removed consumer-finance case for lack of federal jurisdiction and awarded the plaintiffs the fees and costs incurred because of the removal.
“granting Plaintiffs' request and AWARDING fees and costs incurred as a result of this removal”
In Brooks v. Fast Change Lube & Oil Inc., he dismissed an FMLA interference claim, allowed the retaliation claim to proceed, and directed the plaintiff to replead within 15 days.
“directing Plaintiff to replead his Complaint within 15 days of the entry of this Order”
In Riley v. American Electric Power Service Corp., Johnston dismissed an ERISA claim without prejudice because the plaintiff had filed before exhausting the plan’s administrative remedies. He explained that she could exhaust those remedies and then refile.
“The Court believes dismissal without prejudice is the better route. Plaintiff, no doubt, jumped the gun by filing suit before exhausting her administrative remedies. But that mistake does not prevent her from now going back, exhausting her administrative remedies, and then refiling a proper ERISA action.”
In Elkland Holdings LLC v. Eagle Mining LLC, Johnston denied Eagle's motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer venue as moot after resolving the competing arbitration-related motions. He also denied Eagle's request for a status conference.
“denying as moot Eagle's 13 motion to dismiss, or, alternatively, to stay or transfer venue... denying Eagle's 70 request for a status conference”
Cautions
In Galbearth v. State of West Virginia, Johnston dismissed a self-represented plaintiff’s action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff had not answered a show-cause order, and mail sent to his address of record was returned undeliverable.
“Plaintiff has also seemingly failed to maintain his current address with the clerk... Per Rule 83.5 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff--as a pro se party--'must advise the clerk promptly of any changes in name, address, or telephone number.'”
In Logan Coal & Timber Corporation v. Kinzer Business Realty, Ltd., he applied judicial estoppel to bar a party that had agreed to and participated in a judicial sale from later seeking an in-kind partition after losing the sale.
“allowing parties to play 'fast and loose' with the court system--and thereby manipulate the system to their advantage--would both undermine the truth-seeking function of the judicial branch and erode the public's trust in it.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Logan Coal & Timber Corporation's ('Plaintiff') motion for a set-off. (ECF No. 25.) Also pending are Defendant Kinzer Business Realty, Ltd.'s ('Defendant') objections to the judicial sale. (ECF No. 26.) For the reasons more fully explained below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED, and Defendant's objections are OVERRULED.”
“Pending before the Court is Defendants American Electric Power Service Corporation's ('AEP') and Empower Retirement, LLC's ('Empower') Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 4.) For the reasons more fully explained below, the motion is GRANTED. ... AEP's and Empower's motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 4), is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER overruling the Respondents' 24 and 33 Objections; adopting the Magistrate Judge's 15 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION; remanding this case to the Magistrate Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia; granting Petitioner's request for an award of costs and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 8), DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF No. 5), GRANTS the Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF No. 6), AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“GRANTS the Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF No. 6), AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, DISMISSES the Complaint, (ECF No. 1).”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 8), and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“for the same reasons the Court has steadfastly explained, the Petition, (ECF No. 1), is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to RELEASE PETITIONERS IMMEDIATELY from civil immigration custody... The Court ORDERS that Respondents are PROHIBITED from re-arresting and detaining Petitioners pending further order of this Court.”
“ORDER The 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendation is ADOPTED; this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; the 1 Application to Proceed Without Payment of Fees and Costs is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“ORDER adopting the 6 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, dismissing Petitioner's 1 letter-form Petition Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody, without prejudice; directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket.”
“Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Michael E. Jones... Motion for Remand. (ECF No. 5.) For the reasons more fully explained below, the motion is DENIED... Defendant was not on proper notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) that Plaintiff intended to state a federal cause of action until Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint... the Notice of Removal was timely.”
“MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment; this case is dismissed with prejudice; the Clerk is directed to remove this case from the Court's docket.”
“MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 10 Motion to Remand; granting Plaintiffs' request and AWARDING fees and costs incurred as a result of this removal; Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a statement of fees within 10 days of entry of this order; this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.”
“MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 3 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing any FMLA interference claim alleged in Count III; denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to all other claims; directing Plaintiff to replead his Complaint within 15 days of the entry of this Order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled caseload includes insurance and personal-injury suits, ERISA and FMLA employment disputes, RICO and consumer/FCRA claims, prisoner civil-rights and state/federal habeas matters, Social Security appeals, a partition-by-sale property dispute, an arbitration-award challenge, and a current wave of 28 U.S.C.
- Section 2241 petitions challenging immigration detention and post-release conditions in 2026.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 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 Southern District of West Virginia, not for Judge Johnston: 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 | 470 | 10 months |
| Closed with no court action | 16 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 441 | 10.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 19.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 470 | 10 months |
| Sep 2024 | 469 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 473 | 11.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 471 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 939 | 14.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 3,013 | 62.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 41,342 | 53.9 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 Johnston with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Johnston, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Johnston's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace