Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon
How Judge Dixon rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dixon
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Valenzuela Dixon received a commission on December 16, 2024.
Judge Dixon's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Dixon, 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 ↗
- Standing Order for Criminal Cases Assigned to Judge Valenzuela Rev. 3-18-25 ↗
- Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Valenzuela - Rev. 3-13-25 ↗
- Order Setting Scheduling Conference - Rev. 3-13-25 ↗
- Civil Scheduling Worksheets Revised 3-31-25 ↗
- Scheduling and Trial Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Valenzuela Revised 3-31-25 ↗
- Proposed Order Template - Rev. 3-13-25 ↗
- Order Re MSJ - Rev. 3-13-25 ↗
- Judge Valenzuela's Joint Proposed FPTC Order Template Rev. 3-18-25 ↗
- Judge Valenzuela's Joint Exhibit List Template Rev. 3-18-25 ↗
- Judge Valenzuela's Witness List Template Rev. 3-18-25 ↗
- Jury Questionnaire Template Rev. 3-18-25 ↗
Key rules
Filing
The Court does not require chambers copies of any motion papers or exhibits, and discourages the parties from sending copies to chambers, with the exception of motions for summary judgment and overlength briefs.
“The Court does not require chambers copies of any motion papers or exhibits, and discourages the parties from sending copies to chambers, with the exception of motions for summary judgment and overlength briefs.”
Filing
After removal, refile the state court documents as a supplement to the notice of removal.
“All documents filed in state court, including documents appended to the complaint, answers, and motions, must be re-filed in this Court as a supplement to the notice of removal.”
Motions
Civil motions are heard on Friday at 1:30 p.m.
“Civil motions are heard on Friday at 1:30 p.m.”
Motions
Criminal motions are heard on Friday at 10:30 a.m.
“Criminal motions are heard on Friday at 10:30 a.m.”
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 Dixon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
The court accepts a magistrate judge's report and recommendation when its review supports the recommended dismissal.
“ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Cynthia Valenzuela 86, 58 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted and this matter is dismissed with prejudice.”
An amended complaint supersedes the original pleading and can make motions directed at the original complaint moot.
“Since the FAC supersedes the original complaint, Defendants will have an opportunity to file a new responsive motion or pleading.”
In immigration-detention cases, emergency relief has required prompt notice and an opportunity to respond while preserving the court's jurisdiction.
“Respondents are enjoined from continuing to detain Petitioner unless he is provided with notice of the reason of his revocation and an informal interview to afford him an opportunity to be heard as to the revocation”
Once the ordered interview occurred, the court declined to add timing and content requirements unsupported by cited authority.
“the Court has not seen any authority for the proposition that the notice must be issued some specified amount of time in advance of the interview. The Court declines to impose such a requirement here.”
Cautions
A summary-judgment win can end the action with prejudice when the record supports judgment for the defendant.
“Pursuant to the Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 71, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendant General Motors LLC, and the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
In an expressive-work trademark dispute, the court applied the Rogers framework and dismissed the federal and state claims after finding that the challenged use did not identify the source of the television series.
“In conclusion, the Court finds that Rogers bars all of Plaintiff’s claims.”
Litigation expense and a pending dismissal motion did not, without more, justify emergency relief from discovery.
“Accordingly, Defendants do not identify an emergency warranting ex parte relief.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Pursuant to the Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 71, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendant General Motors LLC, and the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Cynthia Valenzuela 86, 58 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted and this matter is dismissed with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Pepperdine’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining order is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the Court issues a Preliminary Injunction and ORDERS as follows: For the pendency of this lawsuit, Respondents are enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Petitioner without notice and a pre-detention hearing.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Application”
“Accordingly, the Court issues a Preliminary Injunction and ORDERS as follows:”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Application”
“For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners request for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Courts February 5, 2026, OSC is DISCHARGED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Application”
“IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition is GRANTED. A writ of habeas corpus requiring Petitioner’s immediate release, unless he is afforded a new Rodriguez bond hearing within seven (7) days, shall issue.”
“IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED and this action is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [40] is GRANTED. The First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Judge Valenzuela's initial calendar included cases transferred from predecessor judges, so durations in those inherited matters are not attributed to her.
- The reviewed decisions now also include cases filed during her tenure, particularly immigration-detention and habeas matters requiring expedited rulings.
- The sample remains too limited and nonrandom for a court-wide duration or disposition 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 | 54 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 4 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 54 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 10 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
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 Dixon: 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 Dixon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dixon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dixon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace