David O. Carter
How Judge Carter rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Carter
David O. Carter is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Carter received a commission on October 22, 1998.
Judge Carter's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Carter, 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 ↗
- PROCEDURES FOR EFILING CRIMINAL DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL ↗
- PROPOSED ORDER TEMPLATE ↗
- SCHEDULING ORDER & ORDER RE: PRETRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEDURES ↗
- ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ↗
- STANDING ORDER ↗
- SCHEDULING ORDER ↗
- GUIDE TO EFILING CIVIL DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL EFFECTIVE 12/1/15 ↗
Key rules
Filing
In civil matters, provide chambers copies only for the listed categories of filings.
“Civil matters: motions for final approval of class settlements; ex parte applications (excluding PHV Applications) and related documents (oppositions and exhibits); Joint Rule 26(f) Reports; and all pretrial as well as ALL TRIAL DOCUMENTS. To save paper, no courtesy copies should be filed for motions not listed above.”
Filing
Deliver required chambers copies by noon on the day after filing, except sealed documents.
“Except as to documents filed under seal, mandatory chambers copies of all documents in both civil and criminal cases shall be delivered to the mandatory chambers box (10th floor) no later than noon following the date of filing.”
Conferences
Appear in person for proceedings unless the court grants a promptly filed request supported by good cause.
“All proceedings- including trials, motion hearings, scheduling conferences, and status conferences- will be held IN PERSON in Courtroom 10A.”
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 Carter decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In a dispute over access to California voter records, the court read the voting statute alongside privacy protections and allowed redaction of personal information. It did not treat the federal requester’s identity as a statutory exception to redaction.
“Further, nothing in the text of the NVRA prohibits the redaction of personal voter information.”
In Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority v. Trump, Carter granted preliminary relief in part after finding HUD’s suspension of the authority arbitrary and capricious and weighing the potential disruption to regional homelessness services.
“Balancing these interests here requires the Court to issue its injunction. This Court cannot permit arbitrary and capricious decision-making by HUD.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Motion.”
“the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), but GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under 12(b)(6).”
“the Court DENIES Radient’s Motion and DENIES MacLellan & Ariura’s Motion in part and GRANTS that Motion in part, as to Section 20(a) liability for Ariura only.”
“DENIES MacLellan & Ariura’s Motion in part and GRANTS that Motion in part, as to Section 20(a) liability for Ariura only.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2) and DISMISSES Plaintiffs case.”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion.”
“Plaintiff's state law claims against all Defendants are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UO and all individual Defendants sued in their official capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, because they are not persons subject to suit under § 1983. ... Plaintiff's § 1983 claim premised on procedural due process violations regarding procedures afforded him upon his dismissal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, as the facts alleged reveal that he received all procedures to which he was legally entitled.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant Duc's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Duc are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.”
“Consequently, though the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, the Court again GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication.”
“Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to close this case.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED to the extent of Plaintiffs exit claim. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the entry claim is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, the Motions to Dismiss are hereby GRANTED. The Third-Party Complaint of Wells Fargo is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Third-Party Defendants Cullum & Burks, NSC, SAI, SAFC, Ameriprise, and Capital Financial. The equitable indemnity claim in the Amended Third-Party Complaint of BNYM is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Third-Party Defendants Cullum & Burks, NSC, SAI, Capital Financial, and Signature Financial. The contribution claim in the Amended Third-Party Complaint of BNYM is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Third-Party Defendants Cullum & Burks, NSC, SAI, SAFC, Capital Financial, and Signature Financial.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled 2019 cases include employment, contract, civil-rights, class-settlement, and administrative-review disputes. Other previously enumerated cases include immigration-detention habeas petitions, prisoner matters, and securities litigation. These selected cases do not measure the judge’s overall caseload mix.
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 6 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 7 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 6 |
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 Carter: 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 Carter with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Carter, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Carter's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace