Michael A. Ambri
How Judge Ambri rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ambri
Michael A. Ambri joined the United States District Court for the District of Arizona as a magistrate judge in March 2023. He sits in Tucson and earned his law degree from the University of Arizona in 2002.
Judge Ambri's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Ambri'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 Ambri decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In D.F. v. Tucson Unified School District, Ambri recommended denying a self-represented plaintiff’s default-judgment motion and dismissing the action without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to file proof of service despite extensions and warnings.
“The deadline for service has passed, but D.F. has not filed proof of service.”
In De Silva v. Pima County Government, Ambri allowed amended declarations to remain in the summary-judgment record for the time being and gave the plaintiff another chance to respond after the defendants corrected their filings.
“The court will allow the new declarations to stand for now and reserve judgment as to whether they address arguments made in the plaintiff’s response.”
In a discovery dispute, Ambri allowed a deposition after the deadline when the plaintiff had pursued the newly identified witness diligently and showed good cause.
“The court finds that Furnas has been diligent”
Cautions
In Shupe v. Pima County Adult Probation Department, Ambri recommended denying a habeas claim based on an alleged fire-department report because Shupe had not shown that the report existed or contained exculpatory information.
“This claim is too speculative to afford relief.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order denying the petition.”
“The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order Denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus.”
“The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order DENYING the plaintiff’s Order for Default Judgment that the court construes as a motion, which was filed on February 1, 2024.”
“It is further recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to file timely proof of service in accordance with this court’s order.”
“DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1)”
“The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order denying the petition.”
“The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order denying the petition.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review, affirm the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review, reverse the final decision of the Commissioner and remand for further proceedings.”
“GRANTING in part Costco’s motion for summary judgment”
“DENYING the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41).”
“The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order GRANTING IN PART the pending motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), filed by the defendants on July 1, 2024.”
“The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order Dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Ambri has served in the Tucson Division since March 2023.
- His sampled docket includes a substantial volume of criminal-duty matters, such as search-warrant applications and border and immigration initial appearances and detention proceedings.
- Civil cases handled with the parties' consent include Social Security disability appeals, housing and disability-accommodation suits, immigration-mandamus actions, medical-malpractice and employment cases, and copyright matters.
- Many consent civil cases settled or were voluntarily dismissed, leaving relatively few dispositive rulings.
- This describes the mix of sampled matters, 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 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 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 Ambri: 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 Ambri with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ambri, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ambri's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace