Scott W. Skavdahl
How Judge Skavdahl rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Skavdahl
Scott Wesley Skavdahl is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Skavdahl received a commission on November 7, 2011.
Judge Skavdahl's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Skavdahl, 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.
- Guidelines for Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Bench Trials ↗
- Final Pretrial Order for Jury Trial ↗
- Final Pretrial Order for Bench Trial ↗
- Procedure for Expert Direct Testimony by Written Statement ↗
Key rules
Trial
In a bench trial, prepare, exchange, and file a written narrative for each expert or other witness with significant technical direct testimony.
“In bench trials, the parties shall prepare, exchange, and file a narrative written statement for each expert witness or any witness whose direct testimony will involve significant technical matters.”
Trial
Exchange and file expert witness statements at least 14 days before trial unless the initial pretrial order sets another deadline.
“The parties shall exchange and file their expert witness statements no later than fourteen (14) days prior to trial, or as otherwise scheduled in the Initial Pretrial Order.”
Trial
Do not attach expert exhibits to the written testimony statement; premark and exchange them separately.
“Documents to be offered as exhibits through the expert witness shall not be attached to the expert witness statement, but shall be pre-marked and exchanged along with other proposed exhibits in the usual fashion.”
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 Skavdahl decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Western Watersheds Project v. Michael, Skavdahl granted summary judgment against Wyoming's data-trespass statutes, enjoining enforcement after finding the content-based restrictions violated the First Amendment.
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 95) is GRANTED ... the State of Wyoming is permanently enjoined from enforcing Wyoming statutes 6-3-414(c) and 40-27-101(c) as both are in violation of the First Amendment”
For a noncitizen arrested in the interior after more than a year in the United States, the judge applied 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) and required an individualized bond hearing rather than accepting detention without bond under Section 1225(b).
“The Court concludes 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) better applies to Petitioner Arevalo’s detention, and it guarantees him an individualized bond hearing, which he has not received.”
In a motion to set aside a default judgment, he found that the defendant had failed to act diligently after service on its registered agent.
“IDE failed to act with diligence and chose to operate carelessly.”
Cautions
In Kaiser-Francis Oil Company v. Noble Casing Inc., Skavdahl granted dismissal of a counterclaim after finding that its release and duty-to-defend provisions conflicted with Wyoming's oilfield anti-indemnity statute.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Noble Casing, Inc.'s Counterclaim [ECF No. 28] is hereby GRANTED.”
In Miesen v. Groff, Skavdahl denied the plaintiff’s reconsideration motion after finding no proper factual or legal basis to revisit the ruling; he said an appeal was the appropriate remedy.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 67) is DENIED.”
In one accidental-death benefits dispute, the judge deferred to a plan administrator’s reasonable interpretation of a policy exclusion when the record supported the stated causal link.
“Unum’s interpretation of ‘crime’ to include speeding for purposes of applying the Crime Exclusion to Plaintiffs’ AD & D claim was reasonable and made in good faith.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Noble Casing, Inc.'s Counterclaim [ECF No. 28] is hereby GRANTED.”
“It is FURTHER ORDERED Defendant Noble's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 30] is hereby DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 95) is GRANTED ... the State of Wyoming is permanently enjoined from enforcing Wyoming statutes 6-3-414(c) and 40-27-101(c) as both are in violation of the First Amendment”
“FURTHER ORDERED that State Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 98) is DENIED”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 67) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Diego Armando Agualongo Arevalo’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 1) is GRANTED.”
“Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (ECF 16) is hereby DENIED.”
“This consolidated matter is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness.”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Unum’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Motion for Judgment on the Record (ECF No. 54) is GRANTED;”
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 56) is DENIED;”
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s Supplemental Authori'ty (ECF No. 72) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing All Claims Against Defendants (ECF No. 44) is DENIED;”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 23) is hereby DENIED.”
“Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 92) and the Individual Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 94) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 96) is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF 48, 50) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Willey, a heavily litigated First Amendment and parental-rights case, was filed on April 20, 2023 and terminated on April 28, 2025 after 739 days.
- The newly sampled Eisenberg matter was filed January 12, 2026 and dismissed without prejudice January 27, 2026; it supplies a procedural motion outcome.
- The other sampled 2026 assignments were pending at the evidence cutoff.
- Other terminated matters, including Burnett and Great West Casualty, are not represented in the dispositive-timing sample.
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 | 6 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 6 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Skavdahl: 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 | 240 | 9.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 74 | 4.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 70 | 5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 86 | 15.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 21.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 240 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 184 | 9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 202 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 219 | 12 months |
| Sep 2021 | 210 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 189 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 195 | 8.9 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 Skavdahl with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Skavdahl, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Skavdahl's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace