Daniel S. Roberts
How Judge Roberts rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Roberts
Daniel S. Roberts has served as a United States magistrate judge for the Central District of California since November 2025. He earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Southern California in 1996 and a law degree from USC Gould School of Law in 1999. He succeeded Gail J. Standish in Los Angeles.
Judge Roberts's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Roberts, 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
Check the docket for the status of a motion, stipulation, or proposed order.
“Rather, inquiries regarding the status of a motion, stipulation, or proposed order should be made by checking the docket.”
Filing
Deliver required chambers copies to Judge Roberts’s Roybal Building drop box by the close of the next court day after filing.
“The Court requires mandatory chambers copies of the following to be delivered to Judge Roberts’s drop box, located outside Suite 1200 on the 12th Floor of the Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, by close of business on the Court day after e-filing.”
Motions
Civil motions are heard on Tuesdays at 10 a.m.; check closed dates before filing, and no advance clearance is normally needed.
“Unless otherwise directed by the Court, civil motions are heard on Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m. Counsel should check the Closed Motion Dates before filing a motion; otherwise, it is unnecessary to clear a civil motion hearing date with the Courtroom Deputy Clerk (CRD) before filing a motion.”
Conferences
Counsel requesting a settlement conference therefore should be prepared to select two dates when contacting the Court to schedule settlement proceedings.
“Counsel requesting a settlement conference therefore should be prepared to select two dates when contacting the Court to schedule settlement proceedings.”
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 Roberts decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Jonathan Sandoval Ahuacama v. Warden of Adelanto ICE Processing Center, Roberts treated the petition’s factual allegations as conceded after respondents declined to dispute them.
“Respondents had the opportunity to dispute the facts alleged in the Petition, but declined to do so. ... Accordingly, the facts alleged in the Petition are undisputed and have been conceded by Respondents. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12.”
In Makka Okunchaeva v. Warden, Roberts considered briefing from both sides and granted a temporary restraining order requiring the petitioner’s release pending further proceedings.
“After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Application, the Court GRANTS the Application, and issues the requested TRO and OSC as specified further below.”
In Nawras Maklad v. Ernesto Santacruz, Jr., Roberts denied the habeas petition without prejudice because the petitioner sought review of a bond denial while his administrative appeal remained pending.
“Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies because he seeks habeas review of the IJ's bond denial ahead of his pending appeal before the BIA.”
Procedural preferences
In Houpeng Mao v. Field Office Director, Roberts granted habeas relief by ordering an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven days.
“within seven days of the date of this Order, Respondents must provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) before an Immigration Judge.”
In Walter Emilio Ventura Santa Maria v. Joshua Johnson, Roberts denied an emergency TRO application without prejudice but temporarily enjoined the petitioner’s removal from the district to preserve jurisdiction over the habeas petition.
“ORDER TEMPORARILY ENJOINING REMOVAL OF PETITIONER FROM CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN ORDER TO PRESERVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO CONSIDER PETITION ON ITS MERITS, BUT OTHERWISE DENYING PETITIONER'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER”
In Singh, he rejected claimed transfer urgency where the petitioner had voluntarily dismissed an earlier action that already barred transfer, while leaving the new habeas petition on an expedited merits schedule.
“A party cannot create its own emergency to justify ex parte relief.”
In Cristobal, after the government missed both the answer and show-cause deadlines, the court treated that failure to respond as consent to the requested habeas relief.
“consent to granting the relief sought in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and issues a Writ of Habeas Corpus ordering Petitioner's immediate release from immigration custody.”
“ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts, re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 . The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus therefore is GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED THAT within seven days of the date of this Order, Respondents must provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) before an Immigration Judge.”
“ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA by Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts. See document for details. ... (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.)”
“ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ORDERING PETITIONER'S IMMEDIATE RELEASE by Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. 2. Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner ... from custody, reinstate his release under the same conditions that were in place before his re-detention on May 7, 2026, and return any personal property and documents seized at the time of his detention.”
“Respondents had the opportunity to dispute the facts alleged in the Petition, but declined to do so. ... Accordingly, the facts alleged in the Petition are undisputed and have been conceded by Respondents. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12. ... For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and issues a Writ of Habeas Corpus ordering Petitioner's immediate release from immigration custody.”
“Petitioner has failed to establish sufficient grounds for consideration of this matter on an emergency ex parte basis. Accordingly, his Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Doc. No. 2, is DENIED. Such denial is procedural, and the Court is not addressing the substantive merits of the Petition at this time.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies because he seeks habeas review of the IJ's bond denial ahead of his pending appeal before the BIA.”
“As such, the facts set forth in the Petition, the legal arguments, and the relief requested are all uncontested. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Petition.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition, but only to the extent of ordering the requested bond hearing.”
“The Court has read and considered all papers filed by each side. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and issues a Writ of Habeas Corpus ordering Petitioner's immediate release from immigration custody.”
“After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Application, the Court GRANTS the Application, and issues the requested TRO and OSC as specified further below. ... [Petitioner] has further shown on the merits that a TRO should issue compelling her forthwith release, pending determination of a Preliminary Injunction or final determination on the Petition on its merits.”
“Having carefully considered the unopposed Petition, the Court GRANTS the Petition and issues a Writ of Habeas Corpus ordering Petitioner's immediate release from immigration custody.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 15.5 days (N = 12).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 15.5 days (N = 12).
The identified docket consists of 41 immigration-detention habeas cases filed from December 2025 through August 2026, largely involving Inland Empire detention facilities. Twenty-six signed orders were retained, while several newer matters remained pending. Although Roberts sits in Los Angeles, most of these matters arose in the district's Riverside and San Bernardino divisions.
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 |
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 Roberts: 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 Roberts with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Roberts, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Roberts's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace