Kyle F. Reardon
How Judge Reardon rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Reardon
Kyle F. Reardon has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Alaska since October 2021. He became chief magistrate judge in September 2025. Before joining the court, he served as an assistant United States attorney in California and Alaska.
Judge Reardon's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Reardon's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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).
- Procedure for Access and Management of Sealed, Restricted and Ex Parte Documents (Second Amended) ↗
- Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Appointment of Counsel and Procedures for Compassionate Release Motions ↗
- Electronic Communication Devices in the Courtroom ↗
How Judge Reardon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In William B. v. Kijakazi, Reardon recommended remand of a Social Security disability denial because the ALJ had not developed the record adequately or properly weighed the claimant’s subjective complaints; he found the errors harmful.
“The ALJ failed to develop the record and did not properly weigh Plaintiff's subjective complaints. The result was not harmless since it resulted in Plaintiff's non-disability status.”
In Bullock v. Wells Fargo Bank, Reardon recommended dismissal of a second property suit as claim-precluded by an earlier judgment and found amendment futile; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“permitting leave to file an amended complaint would be 'futile,' a term used by the United States Supreme Court that applies when a court determines that there is no possible way for a litigant to cure the deficiencies identified in the complaint.”
Procedural preferences
In a multi-defendant drug-trafficking suppression motion, treated evidence of an ongoing distribution relationship and an officer's training-and-experience opinion about how traffickers retain records over time as sufficient to overcome a staleness challenge to search warrants issued five to nine months after the last documented drug sale.
“the five- and nine-month lapses following the August and December 2021 drug sales, respectively, did not make the information about those transactions stale.”
In United States v. Williams, Reardon found that the challenged warrants still had probable cause after information from an unlawful airport stop was removed from the applications.
“the warrants issued as to the Birchwood residence, Jetta, Malibu, and cell phones were supported with probable cause after eliminating any unlawful information from the warrant applications.”
Cautions
In United States v. Peterson, Reardon recommended denying a multiplicity challenge to a multi-count indictment after finding that the counts required distinct elements or identified distinct victims.
“each count of Killing in Furtherance of Continuing Criminal Enterprise, Kidnapping Resulting in Death, Carjacking Resulting in Death, and Use of Firearm to Commit Murder in Relation to Drug Trafficking Crime requires proof that Defendant killed or caused the death of the specific person named in that count.”
In United States v. Walker, Reardon recommended denying suppression despite a late search-warrant return because the Rule 41(f) defect did not show prejudice or deliberate disregard. This is his referral recommendation, not a verified final district-court ruling.
“only a technical error that will not lead to suppression absent prejudice or deliberate disregard”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Detention Review is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“this Court recommends that Defendant's Motion or Compassionate Release be DENIED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's allegations against all Defendants in their official capacity as well as Plaintiff's Count Two Fourteenth Amendment claim, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff's Count Three failure to protect claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss Count One, Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim, is DENIED.”
“this Court recommends that Claimant's motion at Docket 18 be GRANTED and this matter be REMANDED for further proceedings.”
Final Report and Recommendation advising acceptance of a consented guilty plea to a felony information involving an immigration-related offense. This was a non-adversarial plea proceeding, not a contested motion ruling.
“the Report and Recommendation at Docket 87 is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress at Docket 60.”
“the Court first GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant Elisoff's Motion for Joinder; Defendant Elisoff has standing to join Defendant Kennedy's arguments concerning the searches of 3209 Turnagain Street, Apartments 3 and 4, but not the arguments concerning the search of 151 A Street Loop #7.”
“The Court next DENIES Defendants' request for an evidentiary hearing, as Defendants raise no factual disputes in the Motion to Suppress.”
“the Court recommends that the Motion to Suppress be DENIED because the law enforcement affidavits supporting the contested search warrants established probable cause that drug trafficking evidence would be found at the target locations.”
“Alphonso Williams's Motion to Suppress [104] is granted in part and denied in part as specified in the R&R”
“his Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing [105] is denied.”
“the Court therefore recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Multiplicity at Docket 72 be DENIED.”
Final Report and Recommendation advising acceptance of consented guilty pleas to money-laundering conspiracy and felon-in-possession counts in a multi-defendant case. This was a non-adversarial plea proceeding, not a contested motion ruling.
“the Court recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss at Docket 32 be DENIED without prejudice to refiling if it becomes appropriate after the en banc decision in United States v. Duarte.”
“the Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief from Unlawful Confinement Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 149 days (N = 2).
Reardon's work is dominated by criminal magistrate duties, including initial appearances, arraignments, detention hearings, and search-warrant and pen-register applications. He also handles a steady consent Social Security appeal docket and accepts and sentences misdemeanor pleas by consent under 18 U.S.C. Section 3401.
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 | 9 |
| 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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 9 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
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 Alaska, not for Judge Reardon: 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 | 235 | 10.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 38 | 10.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 191 | 9.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 2 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 235 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 230 | 9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 259 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 358 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 281 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 263 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 336 | 8.3 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 Reardon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Reardon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Reardon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace