John Z. Boyle
How Judge Boyle rules, drawn from 46 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Boyle
John Z. Boyle is a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Arizona in Phoenix. He joined the bench in September 2014 and handles preliminary criminal proceedings and civil cases assigned by district judges or by consent.
Judge Boyle's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Boyle, 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 ↗
- Habeas Corpus Order ↗
- Notice of Trial Acknowledgment ↗
- Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference ↗
- Order Setting Rule 16 Case Management Conference ↗
- Proposed Final Pretrial Order ↗
- Settlement Conference Order ↗
- Trial Conduct and Decorum ↗
- Waiver of Appearance ↗
Key rules
Discovery
Do not file a written discovery motion without leave of court; promptly request a telephonic conference instead.
“The parties may not file written discovery motions without leave of Court.”
Discovery
Promptly contact the court for a telephonic conference when a discovery dispute arises.
“If a discovery dispute arises, the parties must promptly contact the Court to request a telephonic conference concerning the dispute.”
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 Boyle decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Perez Majano, Boyle ordered immediate release after finding that a previously paroled immigration detainee was taken back into custody without the hearing due before detention. The order addressed detention, without deciding removal proceedings.
“Petitioner was entitled to a hearing before he was re-detained and placed in DHS custody.”
Procedural preferences
In the Carvana securities case, Boyle required disclosure of confidential witnesses’ identities cited in the complaint, while preserving protection for counsel’s litigation materials and imposing limits on witness contact.
“the attorney work-product doctrine does not protect the identity of Confidential Witnesses, whom a complaint cites or quotes.”
In a later Carvana privilege dispute, a high error rate and repeated log revisions justified private document review by a special master. Boyle declined to deem all 48,666 logged documents unprotected without reviewing them.
“the Court shall not order a sweeping waiver of Defendants’ privilege assertions over 48,666 documents.”
In a crowded securities discovery docket, Boyle denied five interrogatory motions without prejudice and directed the parties to narrow their requests and confer; he warned that failure to confer in good faith could lead to immediate denial or sanctions.
“immediate denial of any discovery motion on the matter or sanctions.”
Cautions
Boyle allowed confidential witness depositions in Carvana to continue despite concern that they might support a sanctions motion. The testimony also bore on the defense, and the plaintiffs had not shown grounds for a protective order or stay.
“Because Defendants have not unambiguously noted that they are conducting CW depositions to obtain matter for a Rule 11 sanctions motion, they have not conducted impermissible discovery here.”
He denied a late counterclaim where the defendant’s proposed new theories would require additional discovery near the deadline and delay the case; he found the request deficient under both Rule 16 and Rule 15.
“Defendant’s proposed Counterclaim would cause undue delay in this”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 30) is granted, in part and denied, in part as follows: Plaintiff may supplement Counts One and Two of his First Amended Complaint only ... Plaintiff shall not be allowed to amend his First Amended Complaint with Counts Three, Four, or Five, and Counts Three, Four, and Five shall be dismissed”
“Failure to satisfy any of the four prongs or requirements of the Dodson test is fatal to the granting of coram nobis review of an issue. For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED adopting in whole the R&R (Doc. 13) submitted by Judge Boyle and denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Declaratory Judgment pursuant to § 2201(a) to 28 U.S.C. (Doc. 1).”
“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 on appeal is denied”
In a consumer-reporting case assigned to Boyle without full party consent, General Order 21-25 required him to prepare an R&R for a designated district judge when he considered dismissal appropriate but lacked Section 636(c) jurisdiction. Boyle's August 19, 2024 R&R recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice. With no objections, the designated district judge adopted it and dismissed without prejudice on September 4, 2024; the adoption order did not state the underlying basis.
In a civil case assigned to Boyle without full consent, the plaintiff received leave to serve third-party subpoenas to identify an unknown defendant, served them, then made no further filings and ignored a show-cause order. Boyle's March 31, 2025 R&R recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice for failure to effect timely service under Rule 4(m) and failure to follow court orders. With no objections, the designated district judge adopted the recommendation and dismissed without prejudice on May 5, 2025.
“IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is affirmed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action.”
“the Commissioner's decision is vacated and this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order; the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case.”
“The Commissioner's decision is vacated and this case remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action.”
“the Commissioner's decision is affirmed and the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioners' decision is vacated and this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case.”
“ORDER that the Commissioners' decision is affirmed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case.”
“The Commissioners' decision is vacated and this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case.”
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 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 | 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 Boyle: 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 Boyle with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Boyle, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Boyle's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace