Angela M. Martinez
How Judge Martinez rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Martinez
Angela Marie Martinez is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Martinez received a commission on July 2, 2024.
Judge Martinez's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Martinez, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Trial
Mark trial exhibits before the court session and provide the judge copies at the start of trial.
“Court time may not be used for marking exhibits. This must be done in advance of the court session. (b) Provide copies of exhibits for the judge at the commencement of the trial.”
Trial
In front of the jury, state only the objection and its basis unless the judge asks for argument.
“Objections are to be limited to stating ‘objection’ and the basis for the objection (‘Objection, leading’) or the number of the Federal Rules of Evidence relied upon (‘Objection, Rule 403’). Do not explain or argue the grounds for objections in the presence of the jury unless asked to do so by the Judge.”
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Martinez decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Lovelady v. General Business Recoveries, Martinez granted Experian summary judgment on the Fair Credit Reporting Act claim because the plaintiff had not shown the reported information was inaccurate or materially misleading.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. 45.) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgement in favor of Defendant Experian ... and close the file in this case.”
In one Endangered Species Act review, the court required an objective standard for measuring incidental take and partly granted summary judgment when the frog’s take statement lacked one.
“Because the frog’s ITS fails to set a clear standard to assess take, the ITS lacks ‘the objectivity necessary to avoid arbitrariness.’”
Procedural preferences
In Netrition Incorporated v. Tyler’s Coffee, Martinez granted the plaintiff additional discovery under Rule 56(d) and denied the defendant’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice until that discovery could occur.
“(3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Doc. 28.)”
Cautions
In United States v. Balda, Martinez reviewed a Speedy Trial Act recommendation de novo, changed parts of its clock analysis, and denied dismissal after accounting for excludable time.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial is DENIED. (Doc. 66.)”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. 45.) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgement in favor of Defendant Experian ... and close the file in this case.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Crystal Lovelady's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. (Doc. 47.)”
“(3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Doc. 28.)”
“(2) Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Discovery is GRANTED. (Doc. 35.)”
“(2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. 18.) (3) Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. ... Claims 1, 2, and 5 as to the individual Defendants, and Claims 7, 10, 12, and 13 as to all Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial is DENIED. (Doc. 66.)”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Pima County's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. (Doc. 49.) Robbins's Equal Protection and Due Process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Claims III and IV) are DISMISSED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Payment of Expert Deposition Fees is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Doc. 72.) Plaintiff shall pay Dr. Erin M. Nelson, Psy.D., the remaining unpaid balance of $2,623.50. However, Defendants’ request for prejudgment interest is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Noel Busch-Armendariz, PhD, LMSW, MPA (Doc. 66), Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Rochelle Keyhan (Doc. 67), Motion to Exclude Salvatore Caccavale (Doc. 68), and Motion to Exclude Heidi Chance (Doc. 69) are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Petitioner’s Motion for Entry of Partial Final Judgment is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment, construed as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART (Doc. 47) as to the 2021 BiOp’s ITSs for the chub and the frog. The motion is otherwise DENIED.”
“Defendants’ and Defendant SACPA’s Motions for Summary Judgment are otherwise GRANTED. (Docs. 50–51.)”
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 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 Arizona, not for Judge Martinez: 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 | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 135 | 2.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,001 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 335 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 32.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,278 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,126 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,181 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,857 | 20.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,128 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,842 | 9.6 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 Martinez with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Martinez, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Martinez's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace