James E. Marner
How Judge Marner rules, drawn from 9 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Marner
James E. Marner became a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Arizona on April 2, 2025. His duty station is Tucson, and his court appointment is for an eight-year term.
Judge Marner's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Marner's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Marner decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Martinez’s benefits appeal, Marner recommended remand after finding that the administrative law judge had not addressed an examiner’s proposed manipulative limitations and had accepted part of another opinion without explanation.
“However, the ALJ failed to discuss FNPC Kuhn’s opined manipulative limitations and the vocational impact of the same. This Court also finds that the ALJ erred in accepting portions of Dr. Palmer’s opinion without explanation for her failure to include Dr. Palmer’s opined manipulative limitations in Martinez’s RFC.”
In Dixon’s benefits appeal, Marner recommended remand after finding the ALJ had not connected household self-care activities to an ability to adapt and manage in a work setting. The district judge adopted the unopposed recommendation.
“This Court finds that the ALJ has failed to build a logical bridge between his finding that Dixon can ‘handle self-care and personal hygiene, care for pets, and care for her son’ with his conclusion that Dixon is able to adapt and manage herself in the work environment.”
Procedural preferences
In a benefits appeal involving vocational rehabilitation records absent from the agency’s decisions, Marner directed that the administrative law judge consider those records on remand.
“On remand the ALJ must consider the VR records”
In Acosta’s First Step Act habeas matter, Marner treated the petitioner’s fentanyl trafficking conviction as a statutory bar to earning time credits and recommended denial; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“This Court finds that Petitioner is statutorily ineligible to earn FSA time credit.”
Cautions
When rejecting a claimant's symptom testimony, the administrative decision must connect the evidence to specific testimony and provide clear, convincing reasons; a lack of objective corroboration cannot stand alone.
“a lack of objective medical support, now standing alone, is not a specific, clear and convincing reason for rejecting Gallegos's symptom testimony.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the district court REVERSE the decision of the and remand the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.”
“For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the district court REVERSE the decision of the ALJ and remand the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.”
On screening an amended self-represented complaint, Marner recommended dismissal after finding the federal claims implausible and further amendment futile. The district judge adopted the recommendation, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the state claims without prejudice. No party-filed dismissal motion was before him, so the screening disposition is excluded from motion counts.
“REVERSE the decision of the ALJ and remand the matter to the Commissioner for further”
“DENY Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.”
“REVERSE the decision of the ALJ and REMAND this matter to the Commissioner for”
“court, after its independent review, DENY the Petition.”
“its independent review, DENY the Petition (Doc. 1).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed matters show a mixed Tucson docket: Social Security referrals, general civil cases, criminal-duty proceedings, and a growing group of consent alien-detainee habeas petitions. Many recently filed matters remained pending. This is a description of the sampled records, not an overall outcome rate.
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 |
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 Marner: 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 Marner with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Marner, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Marner's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace