Camille D. Bibles
How Judge Bibles rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bibles
Camille D. Bibles is a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Arizona in Flagstaff, where she joined the bench in 2019. Before her appointment, she worked as a county and federal prosecutor, including service at an international criminal tribunal.
Judge Bibles's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bibles, 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.
- Exhibit Procedures ↗
- Proposed Final Pretrial Order ↗
- Scheduling Order ↗
- Settlement Conference Order (Telephonic) ↗
- Time Estimates for Jury Trials ↗
- Uncounseled Scheduling Order ↗
- Waiver of Rule 32.1 Hearing ↗
- Waiver of Rule 5 ↗
Key rules
Motions
Do not file more than one summary judgment motion without permission from the court.
“No party shall file more than one motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless permission is first obtained from the Court.”
Motions
Request oral argument on summary judgment by placing “Oral Argument Requested” below the motion or response title.
“a party desiring oral argument on a motion for summary judgment must request it by placing ‘Oral Argument Requested’ immediately below the title of the motion or the response to the motion.”
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 Bibles decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an immigration-detention habeas matter, she recommended relief where continued detention omitted the procedures required by the governing discretionary-detention framework; the district judge adopted the recommendation and required release or a prompt bond-redetermination hearing.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus”
In Brown v. Commissioner, she recommended reversing and remanding a disability benefits denial, and the district judge adopted that recommendation.
“IT IS ORDERED adopting the R&R (Doc. 21) and reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Court remands to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order, as explained in further detail in the adopted R&R submitted by Judge Bibles.”
In Marquez’s immigration detention case, she found that the prolonged detention without a bond hearing raised a due process problem and recommended a hearing within seven days.
“On balance, the Banda factors weigh in favor of Petitioner and the Court may reasonably find that Petitioner’s continued detention without a bond hearing is in violation of her right to due process.”
Procedural preferences
In Bullock, Bibles recommended affirming the denial of disability benefits after finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment.
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the decision of the Commissioner denying Bullock’s claims for disability-based benefits be affirmed and Bullock’s claims for relief denied.”
In Feldman’s Social Security appeal, she recommended affirming after finding that the administrative law judge’s treatment of agency physicians’ opinions had support in the record.
“The record before the Court supports the ALJ’s determination that the medical source opinions, i.e., the agency physicians’ opinions, were supported by and consistent with the required quantum of record evidence.”
Cautions
In Eschief, Bibles recommended denying a Section 2255 motion because it was untimely, equitable tolling did not apply, the plea waiver covered most claims, and the remaining claims lacked merit.
“Eschief’s § 2255 motion was not filed within the applicable one-year statute of limitations, and he fails to establish equitable tolling is warranted in his case.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Aside, or Correct Sentence (CV ECF No. 1) be DENIED.”
“That Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26) is accepted and adopted by the Court; That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice; That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED overruling the Objections (Doc. 41) and adopting in whole the R&R submitted by Judge Bibles in this matter (Doc. 40). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Amended Petition for federal habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 11).”
“IT IS ORDERED adopting the R&R (Doc. 21) and reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Court remands to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order, as explained in further detail in the adopted R&R submitted by Judge Bibles.”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the decision of the Commissioner denying Bullock’s claims for disability-based benefits be affirmed and Bullock’s claims for relief denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED adopting the second Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 12). ... IT IS ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Doc. 11).”
“REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to allege subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and his motions at ECF No. 5 and ECF No. 6 be denied as moot.”
“ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles. (Doc. 11.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice Ogden's Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10.)”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus”
“That Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 2. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is granted;”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorney fees.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an order denying the petition at ECF No. 1 as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled Flagstaff and Grand Canyon assignments include criminal-duty matters arising on tribal and federal public lands, along with Phoenix consumer-credit cases, a consent insurance dispute, and a detainee civil matter. Because the current-duty cases are from 2026, they do not support duration figures; the duration information below comes from older referred cases.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Bibles: 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 Bibles with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bibles, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bibles's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace