Using data from prisoner civil rights complaints filed in Illinois' Northern Federal District, the study uses two currently popular conceptual models -- the merits model (associated with legal formalism) and the politicization model (associated with legal realism) -- to assess the differences between judges appointed by different presidents. Findings show that rates of granting in forma pauperis petitions from prisoners vary systematically among judges appointed by six presidents as a function of the president who appointed the judge, the president's political philosophy, and the grounds on which the petition was filed. Findings provide some support for the politicization model; however, the findings indicate that the conventional merits and politicization models do not fully capture the nature of judicial decisionmaking. Future research must expand the study of organizational decisionmaking by examining the complex decision field in which judicial decisions occur. 4 tables, 61 references.