Lynnette C. Kimmins
How Judge Kimmins rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kimmins
Lynnette C. Kimmins has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Arizona since April 2016. She sits in Tucson and was reappointed in 2024. She earned her law degree from the University of Arizona.
Judge Kimmins's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Kimmins'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 Kimmins decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Thomas v. Hudson, Kimmins recommended denying a habeas petition as without merit; the district judge adopted her recommendation and dismissed the case.
“The Court finds the R&R is well-reasoned and adopts Judge Kimmins’s findings and conclusions that the Petition should be denied because the claim is without merit. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition (Doc. 1) and dismissing this matter.”
In Torrecillas, found an administrative assessment of adaptive functioning too narrow when it focused on how the claimant appeared at appointments but missed evidence that he needed prompting for hygiene and daily tasks.
“Plaintiff required prompting from his mother for his hygiene.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Harvey, Kimmins recommended granting a motion to suppress; the district judge adopted that recommendation.
“IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 72) is accepted and adopted in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. 44) is granted.”
In Bailey v. Ethicon, Kimmins recommended granting partial summary judgment on some product-liability counts and denying it on others; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part as to Counts II, IV, XI, XII, and XV, and DENIED in part as to Counts I (to the extent based on a failure to warn), III, VI, VII, IX, X, XIII, and XIV (Doc. 55).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 72) is accepted and adopted in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. 44) is granted.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Judge Kimmins' R&R (Doc. 143) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Amended First Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 127) is DENIED.”
“The Court finds the R&R is well-reasoned and adopts Judge Kimmins’s findings and conclusions that the Petition should be denied because the claim is without merit. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition (Doc. 1) and dismissing this matter.”
“Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part as to Counts II, IV, XI, XII, and XV, and DENIED in part as to Counts I (to the extent based on a failure to warn), III, VI, VII, IX, X, XIII, and XIV (Doc. 55).”
“Defendants' Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part as to Counts I (to the extent based on design defect), and V, and DENIED in part as to Counts XVII and XVIII (Doc. 117).”
“(1) Magistrate Judge Kimmins's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 29.) (2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. 18.) ... Claims 1, 2, and 5 as to the individual Defendants, and Claims 7, 10, 12, and 13 as to all Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Administrative Law Judge for a new hearing and further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court enter an order granting in part, and denying in part, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 36).”
“Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court enter an order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 51). The Magistrate Judge recommends the Second Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court enter an order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 26) and stay the case while the parties engage in arbitration.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court enter an order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 82), in part, dismissing with prejudice Claim 3 and Defendants Robbins and Johnson, and dismissing without prejudice Claim 5; and denying it, in part, as to Claims 1, 2, and 4, and the remaining Defendants.”
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 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 1 |
| 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 Kimmins: 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 Kimmins with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kimmins, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kimmins's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace