Charles F. Eick
How Judge Eick rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Eick
Charles F. Eick has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Central District of California since 1988. Before joining the bench, he practiced civil and criminal litigation in Los Angeles and served as a judge pro tempore of the Los Angeles Municipal Court. He graduated from Tulane University and the University of Texas School of Law.
Judge Eick's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Eick, 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.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Counsel are not allowed to contact the Judge's law clerk or secretary, or to communicate with the Court or Chambers by means of the Court's email address other than to email proposed orders.
“Counsel are not allowed to contact the Judge's law clerk or secretary, or to communicate with the Court or Chambers by means of the Court's email address other than to email proposed orders.”
Filing
Chambers copies are required only for ex parte applications, temporary restraining orders, injunctions, voluminous filings, or when the court asks for them.
“Mandatory chambers copies of e-filed documents are not required unless the document relates to an ex parte application, a TRO, an injunction, is voluminous document, or the Court requests ‘mandatory chambers copies’ in a particular case.”
Conferences
Select a settlement conference date with the deputy clerk at least two weeks in advance.
“Counsel should select a date for the settlement conference in consultation with the Court's deputy clerk. Counsel should select the date at least two weeks in advance.”
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 Eick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In one reviewed consent petition, the court found that re-detention violated due process and ordered release on the petitioner’s prior supervision conditions.
“Based on the factual allegations in the Petition, the Court finds that Petitioners April 22, 2026 arrest and re-detention violated Petitioner’s due process rights.”
Several reviewed partial grants required a prompt bond hearing and placed the clear-and-convincing burden on the government to justify continued detention.
“the Government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the detention of Petitioner is necessary because Petitioner is an unacceptable danger to the community or an unacceptable risk of flight.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Pursuant to the ‘Order for Entry of Judgment,’ the Petition is granted in part. Within seven (7) days of the entry of Judgment, Respondents must provide Petitioner (A# 246-147-456) with a bond hearing before an immigration judge at which the Government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the detention of Petitioner is necessary because Petitioner is an unacceptable danger to the community or an unacceptable risk of flight.”
“It is ordered that Judgment be entered: (1) requiring Respondents to release Petitioner from detention immediately.”
“It is ordered that the Petition is granted in part and Judgment shall be entered requiring Respondents to release Petitioner (A# 074-822-864) immediately, subject to appropriate conditions.”
“MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick: denying 9 Ex Parte Application for Protective Order for Stay of Removal.”
“It is ordered that the Judgment be entered granting the Petition in part and requiring Respondents to provide Petitioner (A# 201-371-851) with a bond hearing before an immigration judge within fourteen (14) days at which the burden will be on the Government to justify Petitioner’s detention through clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is an unacceptable danger or an unacceptable risk of flight.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied and dismissed with prejudice. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.”
“It is ordered that Judgment be entered: (1) requiring Respondents to release Petitioner (A# 246-272-641) from detention immediately, subject to Petitioners previous conditions of supervision.”
“the Petition is granted in part and: (1) Respondents are ordered to release Petitioner (A# 246-218-601) from detention immediately, subject to the conditions of her previous supervision.”
“it is ordered that Judgment be entered: (1) requiring Respondents to release Petitioner (A# 240-407-869) from detention immediately.”
“It is ordered that Judgment be entered: (1) requiring Respondents to release Petitioner (A# 243-107-786) from detention immediately; and (2) enjoining Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner unless such detention is ordered following an individualized custody determination before a neutral decisionmaker.”
“Based on the factual allegations in the Petition, the Court finds that Petitioners April 22, 2026 arrest and re-detention violated Petitioner’s due process rights. Therefore, it is ordered that judgment be entered: (1) requiring Respondents to release Petitioner (A# 246-395-523) from detention immediately on the same conditions of supervision existing prior to Petitioner’s April 22, 2026 re-detention.”
“Pursuant to the ‘Order for Entry of Judgment,’ the Petition is granted in part. Within seven (7) days of the entry of Judgment, Respondents must provide Petitioner (A 073-868-577) with a bond hearing before an immigration judge at which the Government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the detention of Petitioner is necessary because Petitioner is an unacceptable danger to the community or an unacceptable risk of flight.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed outcome dockets are heavily concentrated in 2026 immigration-detention matters. Twenty-three petitions had grounded filing-to-decision intervals; those short intervals do 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 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 Central District of California, not for Judge Eick: 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 Eick with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Eick, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Eick's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace