Brianna Fuller Mircheff
How Judge Mircheff rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mircheff
Brianna Fuller Mircheff became a U.S. magistrate judge for the Central District of California in April 2023 and sits in Los Angeles. She previously worked in the district’s Federal Public Defender’s Office, where she handled trials, appeals, and postconviction matters and served as chief of writs and appeals.
Judge Mircheff's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Mircheff, 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.
- Judge's Procedures and Schedules ↗
- Case Management Order ↗
- Stipulated Protective Order (PDF) ↗
- Stipulated Protective Order (Word) ↗
Key rules
Filing
In civil cases, courtesy copies are required for summary judgment motions and oppositions; other electronic filings do not require them.
“Judge Mircheff does not require courtesy copies of electronically filed documents. The only exception is for summary judgment motions and oppositions in civil cases.”
Discovery
No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted a pre-motion conference via Zoom unless the movant has obtained leave of Court sought by an ex parte application.
“No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted a pre-motion conference via Zoom unless the movant has obtained leave of Court sought by an ex parte application.”
Conferences
If any party requests a telephonic or Zoom appearance, such a request must be filed in writing no later than a week before the proceeding.
“If any party requests a telephonic or Zoom appearance, such a request must be filed in writing no later than a week before the proceeding.”
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).
- General Order 11-10: Alternative Dispute Resolution Program ↗
- General Order 19-01: Criminal Duty Matters Electronic Filing Pilot Project ↗
- General Order 20-13: Criminal Duty Matters Electronic Filing Pilot Project ↗
- General Order 18-02: Submission of Certain Prisoner Filings Through Electronic Mail ↗
- General Order 24-07: Criminal Justice Act Plan ↗
How Judge Mircheff decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In one reviewed petition, the court granted procedural-due-process relief and ordered immediate release on the petitioner’s prior parole conditions.
“Accordingly, Petitioner’s procedural due process claim (Pet. at 14-18) is GRANTED. Petitioner Daniel Feregrino Pitaya (A# 205-529-662) is ordered immediately released on the previously imposed conditions of parole.”
In another reviewed case, release after filing did not moot the petition because the voluntary-cessation exception left open the risk of renewed detention without a judgment.
“absent judgment in her favor, nothing would prevent Respondents from simply taking Petitioner back into custody.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Pursuant to the Order Granting Petition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Petition (ECF 1) is granted.”
“Claim One in the Petition is granted. Petitioner Gurudev Gurudev (A# 246-245-661) is ordered immediately released on the parole conditions previously imposed. Claim Two through Four in the Petition are denied as moot in light of the relief granted on Claim One.”
“The Petition is denied. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.”
“Accordingly, Petitioner’s procedural due process claim (Pet. at 14-18) is GRANTED. Petitioner Daniel Feregrino Pitaya (A# 205-529-662) is ordered immediately released on the previously imposed conditions of parole.”
“Accordingly, Claim Two in the Petition (ECF 1) is GRANTED. Petitioner Julissa Itzamara Aguirre Castillo (A # 220-393-971) is ordered released on the conditions previously imposed within 24 hours of this Order. The remaining claims in the Petition are denied as moot in light of the relief granted on Claim Two.”
“Petitioner reports that he has been released from Respondents’ custody. (ECF 12.) Accordingly, pursuant to the Order Granting Petition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Petition (ECF 1) is granted.”
“The Court therefore discharges the OSC and denies the Ex Parte Application (ECF 6) as moot.”
“Claim One in the Petition (ECF 1) is GRANTED. Petitioner Mirza Nicole Maltez Reyes (A# 246-339-016) shall be immediately released on the conditions previously imposed. The remaining Claims in the Petition are denied as moot in light of the relief granted on Claim One.”
“Pursuant to the Order Granting Petition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Petition (ECF 1) is granted.”
“(In Chambers) Order Denying Petition (ECF 1) by Magistrate Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff.”
“Claim One in the Petition (Pet. at 6) is GRANTED. Petitioner Andrea Lancini (A# 246-058-942) is ordered immediately released on the bond conditions imposed by the IJ’s June 25, 2026, Order. The remaining Claims in the Petition are denied as moot in light of the relief granted on Claim One.”
“Claim Three in the Petition (Pet 71-75.) is GRANTED. Petitioner Maria Teresa Gonzalez Conrrado (A#246-547-232) is ordered immediately released on the parole conditions previously imposed. Claims One and Two in the Petition (Pet. 65-70) are denied as moot in light of the relief granted on Claim Three.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed outcome dockets all arise from a concentrated 2026 immigration-detention program. Their short duration does not describe the judge’s wider consent and referral caseload.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 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 Central District of California, not for Judge Mircheff: 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 | 15,190 | 3.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 4,414 | 3.1 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 10,538 | 4.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 103 | 17.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 135 | 25.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 15,190 | 3.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 15,348 | 3.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 13,583 | 4.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 12,887 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 14,213 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 14,205 | 5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 13,478 | 4.9 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 Mircheff with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mircheff, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mircheff's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace