Diane J. Humetewa
How Judge Humetewa rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Humetewa
Diane Joyce Humetewa is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Humetewa received a commission on May 16, 2014.
Judge Humetewa's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Humetewa, 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
Contacting chambers
Authors of character letters must not send them directly to the sentencing judge.
“Character letters shall not be mailed directly to the sentencing judge by any family members or other persons writing in support of the defendant.”
Filing
File sentencing motions or memoranda six business days before sentencing; responses are due three business days before.
“Motions or memoranda regarding sentencing shall be filed six (6) business days before the sentencing date.”
Filing
Defense counsel must submit original character letters on paper to probation, with copies to the judge and opposing counsel, at least five business days before sentencing.
“Original character letters must be submitted by defense counsel in paper form with the original to the U. S. Probation Office and copies to the sentencing judge and opposing counsel at least five (5) business days prior to the sentencing hearing.”
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 Humetewa decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Begay v. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, Humetewa upheld the denial of relocation benefits after deferring to the hearing officer’s credibility findings. She also rejected the plaintiff’s nonmutual collateral estoppel argument against the government.
“the Court finds that the ONHIR did not abuse its discretion, or arbitrarily, or capriciously deny Plaintiff relocation benefits... the Court must give deference to the IHO's credibility determinations.”
In Knight v. County of Mohave, Humetewa denied leave to amend because the proposed pleading could not cure the jurisdictional, abstention, and immunity defects she identified.
“The futility of the proposed amendments precludes the Court from granting leave to amend.”
In Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Humetewa found that the parties had relied on the wrong transfer provisions. She distinguished the three statutes and transferred the severed claims under Section 1631 after finding no personal jurisdiction over them.
“Both parties are mistaken. The three transfer statutes are used for distinct purposes and operate to achieve different results.”
Denied an unopposed default-judgment request because the pleaded contract claims did not establish liability; the absence of opposition did not cure a legally insufficient claim.
“Because the claims Plaintiff seeks default judgment on have not been adequately established, default judgment cannot be entered.”
In Andrews v. Wilson Electric, Humetewa denied both sides’ sealing requests without prejudice because their broad confidentiality designations did not establish compelling reasons to seal each exhibit.
“The fact that one of the parties has designated information as confidential does not provide the Court with compelling reasons to seal it from public access.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) is denied and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is granted.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) is denied and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is granted. ... IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that judgment shall be entered for Defendant and this matter shall be closed.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. 13) is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 104) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 105) is DENIED. All of Plaintiff's claims are dismissed. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment in Defendant's favor and dismiss this action.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 104) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 105) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Huffacker's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss Huffacker from this action.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is granted in part as set forth in this Order. Plaintiff's state law claims and her HEA claim shall be dismissed with prejudice. ... The Court denies Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII claim in its entirety. The Title VII hostile work environment claim may proceed”
“Defendants' Motion for a more definite statement is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 42) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings (Doc. 65) is granted. This matter is dismissed, without prejudice.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 42) and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 59) are denied as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Orsuga Consulting, LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Exhibit D to her Response (Doc. 99) is granted.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Portions of Opinion Testimony by John Ulzheimer as Outside the Scope of Rule 702 and Daubert (Doc. 107) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Daubert Motion (Doc. 99) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Remand (Doc. 17) is GRANTED and the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings, including a new administrative hearing.”
“Defendants State of Arizona, Mike Faust, Clara Harwood, and Chantel Madson's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) and Defendant Conchetta Oglesby's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) are granted, in part, as to Count V, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count V is dismissed as to all Defendants.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default (Doc. 45) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall set aside the Clerk's Entry of Default (Doc. 35).”
“IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 40) is denied as moot.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant Victor C. Breen's Answer and Counterclaims (Doc. 33) is denied as moot.”
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 | 15 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 7 |
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 Humetewa: 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 Humetewa with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Humetewa, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Humetewa's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace