Kelly H. Rankin

How Judge Rankin rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Wyoming
Position
District judge
Appointed by
Joe Biden (Democratic)
Commissioned
March 12, 2024
ABA rating
Well Qualified
Education
University of Wyoming (B.S., 1990); University of Wyoming College of Law (J.D., 1994)
Signed orders read
23

About Judge Rankin

Kelly Harrison Rankin is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Rankin received a commission on March 12, 2024.

Judge Rankin's practices and standing orders

Rules for cases before Judge Rankin, 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

Trial

In a bench trial, the plaintiff files proposed findings and conclusions first, then the defendant responds.

“Plaintiff shall first serve and file proposed findings and conclusions. Defendant shall then”

Trial

Number proposed factual findings so the opposing party can admit or deny each sentence.

“the opposing parties will be able to admit or deny each separate sentence of the”

Trial

The defendant’s factual response must use the corresponding numbers from the plaintiff’s proposed findings.

“shall bear the same number as the corresponding sentence in Plaintiff=s narrative”

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).

Key rules from these orders · The court's local rules ↗

How Judge Rankin decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In Ready v. Natrona County School District No. 1, he granted defendants partial summary judgment on a former employee's due-process claims after finding that the agreement's disciplinary procedures did not alter his at-will employment status or create a property interest.

“It is clear that the District meant to provide its employees with certain procedural protections while not altering their at-will status.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Ready v. Natrona County School District No. 1
2:23-cv-00071-KHR · 2024-09-18
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Entitlement to Procedural Due Process and Motion for Summary Judgment on the Adequacy of Due Process are DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Claims 3 and 4 are dismissed.”

Lewis v. Triangle Cross Ranch LLC
2:23-cv-00202-KHR · 2024-07-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The Court grants MMC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to the perpetrator liability claims for forced labor and trafficking and denies it as to the beneficiary liability claims under those provisions.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The Court grants SOLT's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. The Amended Complaint simply does not contain factual content such that SOLT could be held liable under any relevant theory.”

Frank v. Gray
2:20-cv-00138-KHR · 2024-07-09
Motion to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Verified Complaint is GRANTED.”

Wright v. Devon Energy Production Company LP
2:22-cv-00213 · 2024-04-08
Class certification (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CERTIFYING THE CLASS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SETTING DATE FOR FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING”

True Oil LLC v. Bureau of Land Management
2:22-cv-00188 · 2023-10-30
Petition for review agency action (petitioner) Denied

“For the above stated reasons, the Court finds the BLM acted within its scope of authority and declares the BLM, as designated by Congress, is permitted to regulate subsurface activity in protection of federal minerals as it did here.”

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. AmeriStar LLC
2:24-cv-00169 · 2024-09-09
Motion for temporary restraining order (plaintiff) Granted

“NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for a Rule 65(b)(1) Temporary Restraining Order, Asset Freeze, and Other Emergency Relief [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED.”

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. AmeriStar LLC
2:24-cv-00169 · 2025-02-18
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment as to Liability Against Defendant AmeriStar, LLC [35] is GRANTED. Default judgment is entered finding that AmeriStar violated Sections 5(a) and (c) and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c); 77q(a)], and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].”

Sander v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
2:24-cv-00068 · 2024-09-27
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $8,000.00 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, as the prevailing party herein, and court costs of $405.00, which is to be paid from the Department of Justice's Judgment Fund, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, not agency funds.”

Smith v. Albany County School District No 1 Board of Trustees
2:23-cv-00159 · 2025-05-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The Court entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on May 27, 2025. [ECF No. 41]. Accordingly, it is therefore ORDRED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Omsberg v. Hydrite Chemical Co
2:23-cv-00208 · 2024-08-12
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“After reviewing the relevant law and the facts of this case, the Court finds Defendant's Motion should be granted as the FSMA provides an administrative remedy, barring a claim for retaliatory discharge under Wyoming law. Plaintiff's claim for retaliatory discharge is dismissed with prejudice.”

Omsberg v. Hydrite Chemical Co
2:23-cv-00208 · 2024-10-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDER by the District Judge Kelly H Rankin granting Defendant's Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's claim for breach of implied employment contract is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Nissen v. Contango Resources LLC
2:23-cv-00031 · 2024-05-09
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDER by the District Judge Kelly H Rankin denying Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's Motion is denied because there are disputed material facts.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Ready ran 557 days from filing to termination, and Rhodes ran 151 days. These two terminated matters are too few to describe case duration across the full docket.

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 months0
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years0
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 202600
Sep 202500
Mar 202500
Sep 202401
Mar 202401
Sep 202300
Mar 202300
Sep 202200
Mar 202200
Sep 202100
Mar 202100
Sep 202000

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 District of Wyoming, not for Judge Rankin: 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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed2409.1 months
Closed with no court action744.9 months
Closed before pretrial705 months
Closed during or after pretrial8615.9 months
Closed during trial1021.7 months
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20252409.1 months
Sep 20241849 months
Sep 202320210.3 months
Sep 202221912 months
Sep 202121011.7 months
Sep 20201898.9 months
Sep 20191958.9 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 Rankin with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rankin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Rankin's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace