Christina T. Shay
How Judge Shay rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Shay
Christina T. Shay became a U.S. magistrate judge for the Central District of California in June 2026 and sits in Los Angeles. She previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney, including as chief of the Criminal Division and chief assistant U.S. attorney for the district.
Judge Shay's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Shay, 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
Parties and counsel are not allowed to contact the Court’s law clerks or to communicate with Chambers by any means, except as expressly provided herein or otherwise ordered by the Court.
“Parties and counsel are not allowed to contact the Court’s law clerks or to communicate with Chambers by any means, except as expressly provided herein or otherwise ordered by the Court.”
Filing
Judge Shay does not routinely require chambers copies of any electronically filed documents.
“Judge Shay does not routinely require chambers copies of any electronically filed documents.”
Discovery
A discovery motion requires a pre-motion Zoom conference unless the court grants leave on 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
A party wishing to appear by videoconference must email that request to Judge Shay’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk at [email protected] no later than 48 hours prior to the scheduled hearing; each such request must copy opposing counsel and must explain why a remote appearance is being requested.
“A party wishing to appear by videoconference must email that request to Judge Shay’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk at [email protected] no later than 48 hours prior to the scheduled hearing; each such request must copy opposing counsel and must explain why a remote appearance is being requested.”
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 Shay decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In one alien-detainee habeas matter, Shay ordered a bond hearing after the government conceded that the petitioner appeared to belong to a class entitled to consideration for release under Section 1226(a).
“Respondents concede in their Answer that ‘Petitioner appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible Class’”
In another habeas matter, she granted release and prospective hearing protections where the government expressly declined to oppose the requested relief and offered no lawful basis for continued custody.
“If Respondents—those responsible for holding Petitioner in custody—do not put forward any lawful basis to justify that custody, it would violate the party presentation principle for this Court to generate reasons on its own.”
In Qu, Shay ordered release after finding that immigration officers arrested two petitioners at a scheduled biometrics appointment without a warrant or evidence that either was likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained. The government did not answer that claim.
“Respondents knew exactly where and when to find Petitioners, and had no excuse for not obtaining a warrant in advance.”
Procedural preferences
In Noriega-Gastelum’s habeas case, Shay found the expedited schedule and advance-removal notice adequate while the petition was pending because the petitioner had not shown imminent harm requiring faster relief.
“Petitioner has not shown that he faces such ‘imminent, irreparable harm’ that an even more expedited schedule is called for than that set in this case.”
Cautions
A request for temporary emergency relief was denied where an existing expedited schedule and advance-removal notice preserved the status quo during the habeas proceedings.
“Petitioner therefore has not shown irreparable harm warranting a TRO during the pendency of his habeas proceedings.”
In Bonilla-Romero’s habeas case, Shay barred removal to a country other than Honduras until the government identified the destination and gave the petitioner an opportunity to reopen removal proceedings to seek protection there.
“Respondents are ENJOINED from removing Petitioner to any country other than Honduras”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Petition is GRANTED to the extent it seeks a finding that Petitioner is entitled to an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)”
“Accordingly, Petitioner’s TRO Application is DENIED.”
“GRANTING Count Three of the Petition”
“Judgment shall be entered GRANTING the unopposed Petition”
“Judgment shall be entered GRANTING the Petition”
“Petitioner’s TRO Application is denied as moot”
“Judgment shall be entered GRANTING the unopposed Petition;”
“Judgment shall be entered GRANTING the Petition as to Count Three and”
“Judgment shall be entered GRANTING the Petition to the extent it”
“Judgment shall be entered GRANTING the unopposed Petition;”
“Judgment shall be entered GRANTING the Petition as to Claims One and Two; denying Claim Three, which was pleaded only in the alternative;”
“Judgment shall be entered GRANTING the Petition;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
All 32 post-appointment assigned matters were alien-detainee habeas petitions. Five case-level records were terminated and 27 remained open at review; several open matters had already received a petition ruling but awaited later status or closure entries.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, not for Judge Shay: 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 Shay with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Shay, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Shay's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace