David L. Piester
How Judge Piester decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Piester's consent docket includes early, plaintiff-favorable civil-rights/disability-access decisions against University of Nebraska entities: he found for the disabled student on Rehabilitation Act / ADA roommate-access claims after a bench trial (Coleman v. Zatechka) and struck down a campus freshman-housing policy on First Amendment grounds (Rader v. Johnston). Practical lesson: well-developed constitutional / disability-discrimination records against state-university defendants have prevailed before him. Grounded in the verbatim judgment paragraphs; context-specific, do not over-generalize.
“The policy of the defendants in prohibiting plaintiff from participation in the random roommate assignment program at UNL is declared to violate both the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, as applied to plaintiff.”
In Social Security disability appeals, Piester will remand for a new hearing before a DIFFERENT Administrative Law Judge on due-process grounds -- a fair-and-impartial-decisionmaker problem with the ALJ -- rather than the more common sentence-four remand for further evidentiary development. This is a materially different (and stronger) basis for remand than the routine 'Commissioner concedes error' unopposed remand seen elsewhere in his docket.
“due process requires a fair and impartial decision maker. Johnson, supra. In this case that means the matter must be remanded for another hearing before a different ALJ. Judgment will be entered accordingly.”
Procedural preferences
Piester's largest recurring caseload as a consent (28 U.S.C. 636(c)) magistrate was Social Security disability appeals. When the Commissioner concedes reversible error rather than defending the ALJ's decision, the case resolves quickly on an unopposed motion to reverse and remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), and a follow-on Equal Access to Justice Act attorney-fee petition is then granted, typically without opposition. Where the appeal is instead fully cross-briefed and Piester decides the merits himself, outcomes were mixed (several affirmances of the agency, several reversals/remands).
“Defendant's motion to reverse and remand this case for further proceedings, filing 22, is granted. Judgment will be entered by separate order.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT THEREFORE HEREBY IS ORDERED: 1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (filing 39) is granted with respect to plaintiff's constitutional and age discrimination claims. 2. Plaintiff's state law claim is dismissed without prejudice.”
Consent case under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) ('the parties have consented to have this action proceed before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)') decided after a two-day bench trial (commenced April 19, 1993) rather than on a party motion. A landmark early disability-access ruling: Piester entered judgment for the plaintiff on her Section 504 Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims, declaring UNL's policy of excluding her from the random roommate-assignment program unlawful as applied, enjoining it, and awarding compensatory damages. The judgment states: 'judgment hereby is entered as follows: 1. With respect to plaintiff's claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, for plaintiff and against defendants ... 2. The policy of the defendants in prohibiting plaintiff from participation in the random roommate assignment program at UNL is declared to violate both the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, as applied to plaintiff. 3. The defendants ... are enjoined from further prohibition of the plaintiff from participating ... 4. Plaintiff is awarded compensatory dam[ages].'
Consent case under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) ('the parties consented to have me preside at trial and enter judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)'), titled 'Memorandum of Decision'. A merits/declaratory judgment rather than a party-motion ruling: Piester entered judgment for the plaintiff, declaring the University of Nebraska-Kearney freshman on-campus-housing policy unconstitutional as applied to him and enjoining its enforcement. The judgment states: 'judgment will be enter[ed] for the plaintiff, Douglas Rader. IT THEREFORE HEREBY IS ORDERED: 1. The defendants' enforcement of the University of Nebraska-Kearney's freshman housing policy, in its present form and application, against the plaintiff, Douglas Rader, is declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment ... 2. The defendants ... are ordered to refrain from enforcing in any way the Unive[rsity policy].'
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 491 days (N = 16).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 52 days (N = 2).
The approximately 21 sampled cases, filed from 1990 through 2008, include civil-rights, prisoner, contract, employee-benefit, disability-access, and Indian Child Welfare Act disputes. Fourteen consent Social Security disability appeals form the largest recurring group, often followed by attorney-fee applications when the claimant prevailed.
Put Judge Piester's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Piester actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Piester's own signed orders and cites them.