Frank R. Zapata
How Judge Zapata rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Zapata
Frank R. Zapata is a senior judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before his district court appointment in 1996, he served as a federal magistrate judge and as an assistant federal public defender. He assumed senior status on August 3, 2010.
Judge Zapata's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Zapata, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Conferences
In criminal cases, change-of-plea and revocation hearings are referred to a magistrate judge for findings and recommendations.
“Pursuant to LRCrim 57.6, I hereby refer the following proceedings to a United States Magistrate Judge for hearing and preparation of findings and recommendations: Change of Plea Hearings Admit/Deny Hearings on Petitions for Revocation of Probation Admit/Deny Hearings on Petitions for Revocation of Supervised Release Evidentiary hearings on petitions to revoke probation or supervised release”
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 Zapata decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In one preclusion dispute, the court took judicial notice of filings from related litigation and kept the defendants’ dismissal motion at the pleading stage.
“all of these matters are properly before the Court in relation to Defendants' motion to dismiss.”
In Bobbitt, he denied certification of a proposed nationwide legal malpractice class after the plaintiffs failed to address the applicable laws of other states despite opportunities to brief the issue.
“Plaintiffs failed to fully address the choice of law issues despite their opportunities to do so, and the Court will not consider these issues again.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Renzenberger’s motions to strike (Docs. 137, 143) are granted;”
“Renzenberger’s motion for summary judgment and Kouba’s motion (Docs. 92 and 131) are granted in part and denied in part”
“Plaintiff’s ‘motion, request for extension of time to read and reply to court’s adding transcripts of deposition to the record’ (Doc. 154) is denied.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 30) is granted.”
“Catz' motion (Doc. #72) is denied;”
“Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted; as such, all other pending motions are denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendants Pima County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) is granted.”
“Defendants Anthony Doty and Sameer Qasem’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) is granted.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or in the alternative for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 126) is granted.”
“The motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendants James Ziglar, David Aguilar, Ralph Hunt, Alvaro Obregon, Felix Chavez, and Michael Campbell (Doc. 143) is denied.”
“Defendants’ motion to amend Answer (Doc. 232) is granted.”
“Summary judgment in favor of Defendant Hunt is denied.”
“Summary judgment in favor of Defendant Demik is granted with respect to Defendant Demik’s conduct during the March 6, 2001, stop and summary judgment is denied with respect to Defendant Demik’s stop of the Chavez Shuttle on March 6, 2001.”
“The City of Nogales’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Count II of Third Party Plaintiff USIBWC’s Third Party Claim (Doc. 166) is GRANTED;”
“USIBWC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability on Count 9 of the State’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 168) is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff State’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment – Count 9 (Doc. 170) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel (Doc. 186) is denied.”
“Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment seeking to apply offensive nonmutual issue preclusion is denied.”
“The motions for summary judgment (Docs. 100, 105) are denied in part and granted in”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The selected matters include consumer credit, civil rights, habeas, and contract disputes. Ten selected dockets cannot establish the overall caseload mix.
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 | 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 Zapata: 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 Zapata with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Zapata, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Zapata's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace