Deborah M. Fine
How Judge Fine rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Fine
Deborah Maureen Fine has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Arizona in Phoenix since May 2015. Her work includes referred habeas petitions and Social Security appeals, along with civil cases heard with the parties’ consent.
Judge Fine's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Fine, 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.
- Case Management Order ↗
- Guidelines for Jury Instructions in Civil Cases ↗
- Proposed Final Pretrial Order ↗
- Standard Civil Voir Dire ↗
- Trial Conduct and Decorum ↗
- Waiver Appearance ↗
Key rules
Discovery
After an unresolved personal consultation, jointly file a Motion for Resolution of Discovery/Disclosure Dispute with no more than two pages of explanation per side.
“the parties shall jointly file a ‘Motion for Resolution of Discovery/Disclosure Dispute’ containing (1) a brief written summary of the dispute, not to exceed two pages per side”
Discovery
Do not file another discovery or disclosure motion without leave of court.
“The parties shall not otherwise file motions regarding discovery or disclosure disputes without leave of the Court.”
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 Fine decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Gordillo’s immigration detention petition, Fine treated the government’s prior conditional release as creating a liberty interest in remaining free absent violation of release conditions; she recommended immediate release subject to conditions.
“While the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody creates ‘an implicit promise,’ upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be revoked only if the individual fails to live up to the conditions of release.”
Procedural preferences
In a prisoner civil-rights referral, Fine recommended dismissal of an unnamed defendant when the plaintiff did not file a substitution within the time the court had allowed.
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendant Doe I be dismissed”
Cautions
In a reviewed habeas recommendation, Fine applied the one-year filing limit and recommended denial after finding no basis for equitable tolling.
“Accordingly, the Petition should be denied as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).”
In an in forma pauperis case, Fine recommended dismissal without leave to amend after finding the complaint implausible and amendment futile.
“recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend.”
In Cuellar’s challenge to an immigration judge’s adverse bond determination, Fine recommended denial because the petitioner had not appealed to the immigration appeals board and showed no basis to excuse exhaustion.
“Petitioner’s claim is not exhausted and Petitioner has raised no grounds to excuse the exhaustion requirement.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the Petition should be denied as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).”
“denied as moot.”
Fine recommended dismissing an unidentified defendant without prejudice when the plaintiff did not substitute a named defendant after the screening order gave him time to do so. No party motion was decided in this recommendation.
“the Petition (Doc. 1) be denied, and that the Clerk of Court be directed to terminate this”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition (Doc. 1) be granted in part and denied”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition (Doc. 1) be granted to the extent that”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Petitioner’s ‘Motion to Expand Record”
“dismissed with prejudice and that the Clerk of Court be directed to terminate this matter.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition (Doc. 1) be granted as set forth herein.”
“Interim Relief from Probation” (Doc. 23) be denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed recent assignments emphasize criminal-duty matters such as search warrants, initial appearances, and illegal-reentry cases, with a smaller number of consent civil matters and a Social Security appeal. Because those cases are from 2026, they do not yet support duration figures.
- Four older referrals involving habeas, Social Security, and prisoner civil rights provide motion-to-recommendation timing, and the assigned district judge adopted each recommendation in full.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Fine: 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 Fine with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Fine, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Fine's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace