John Watson Lungstrum
How Judge Lungstrum decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Applies the 'single publication rule' to defamation: a document (here a FINRA Form U-5) is published once, and later transmittals/re-distributions do not create new causes of action or restart the limitations clock. Defamation plaintiffs should plead a genuinely distinct republication, not mere re-transmission, to avoid a limitations bar.
“subsequent transmissions of the Form U-5 do not constitute new publications sufficient to restart the running of the statute of limitations.”
Procedural preferences
Treats dismissal as a litigation sanction as a last resort, applying the Tenth Circuit's Ehrenhaus factors (prejudice, interference, culpability, advance warning, efficacy of lesser sanctions). A party seeking case-ending sanctions must show willfulness or bad faith and a prior warning that dismissal was likely.
“dismissal as a sanction for the conduct of a party's counsel is so ‘harsh’ that it is appropriate only in cases of willfulness, bad faith or some fault of the party to be sanctioned.”
Cautions
Will not consider merits arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief (deemed waived), though he may reach them anyway when the non-movant had a chance to respond. Put every dispositive argument in the opening brief.
“argument raised for the first time in reply brief is waived”
A prisoner-plaintiff cannot escape the consequences of a § 1915A screening dismissal (a with-prejudice ruling and a § 1915(g) 'strike') by filing a Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal after the complaint has been screened and found meritless.
“Plaintiff cannot use voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) to avoid dismissal with prejudice and the effect of a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).”
On a multi-claim summary-judgment motion, a defendant who fails to marshal the record on a specific theory of liability does not meet its initial burden as to that theory, and the claim survives regardless of its merits. A summary-judgment brief must address every discrete theory the plaintiff has preserved, not just the main ones.
“Because defendant has made no effort to marshal the evidence concerning those requests for accommodation, defendant has not met its initial burden of showing the absence of a material factual dispute as to any issue with respect to these requests for accommodations.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's defamation claim (doc. 18) is granted and, because that claim was the only claim asserted against defendant Holleran, defendant Holleran is dismissed as a party to this action.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant's motion for entry of judgment dismissing complaint with prejudice (doc. 10) is denied and defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's response for failure to comply with the court's order (doc. 13) is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider and Reopen Case Based on Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice (Doc. 111) is denied. This case remains closed.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider under Local Rule 7.3, Correct Misquotation, Correct Record and Seek Clarification Regarding Pro Se Access to Sealed Records via PACER (Doc. 112) is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reseal Document (Doc. 110) is denied.”
“defendant's motion is granted as to plaintiff's ADA discriminatory discharge and failure-to-accommodate claims”
“is denied as to plaintiff's ADA retaliation claim”
“is granted as to plaintiff's state law public policy claim to the extent that claim is based on plaintiff's requests for heat in the maintenance garage”
“is denied as to plaintiff's state law public policy claim to the extent the claim is based on plaintiff's reports about wiring issues at the apartment complex where he worked”
“respondents' motion to vacate the Court's judgment in favor of petitioner and to dismiss the case as moot (Doc. # 8) is hereby denied.”
“the petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby granted in part. Respondents are ordered either to release petitioner or to ensure that petitioner receives a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on or before June 15, 2026 ... The Court denies any request for other relief.”
“The petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby granted in part. Respondents are ordered either to release petitioner or to ensure that petitioner receives a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on or before June 29, 2026, and they are further ordered to provide notice to this Court when such relief has been given. The Court denies petitioner's requests for other relief.”
Put Judge Lungstrum's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Lungstrum actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Lungstrum's own signed orders and cites them.