Diana M. Kwok
How Judge Kwok rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kwok
Diana M. Kwok became a U.S. magistrate judge for the Central District of California in March 2026 and sits in Los Angeles. Before joining the bench, she practiced commercial litigation and white collar defense at McKool Smith and Sidley Austin. Earlier, she served for nearly a decade as an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles.
Judge Kwok's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kwok, 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
Filing
In civil cases, courtesy copies are required for summary judgment motions and oppositions; other electronic filings do not require them.
“Judge Kwok does not require courtesy copies of electronically filed documents. The only exception is for summary judgment motions and oppositions in civil cases.”
Discovery
A discovery motion requires a pre-motion Zoom conference unless the court grants leave on an ex parte application.
“Third, 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
Settlement conferences generally are held in person on any day of the week except for Mondays, and typically begin at 10:00 a.m.
“Settlement conferences generally are held in person on any day of the week except for Mondays, and typically begin at 10:00 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 Kwok decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In post-release re-detention habeas cases, she applies the Mathews v. Eldridge three-factor procedural due-process test as her standard analytical framework, and treats an undisputed factual record, especially an answer that takes no opposing position, as effectively conceding the petition under the district's local rules.
“To determine whether detention violates procedural due process, courts frequently apply the three-part test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).”
Where the government's answer states only that it is 'not presenting an opposition argument,' she construes the petition as unopposed and grants it without requiring further merits briefing.
“The Court thus construes the petition as unopposed.”
Procedural preferences
When a petitioner files an emergency ex parte application for a temporary restraining order alongside a habeas petition already on the district's expedited Section 2241 briefing schedule, she routinely denies the TRO as unwarranted, reasoning that the underlying petition itself will be decided quickly enough that emergency relief is unnecessary: a recurring, near-identical ruling across several cases in this docket.
“In light of the expedited briefing schedule set forth in General Order No. 26-05 on the underlying habeas petition, it is not certain that the merits of the TRO Application can be decided before the merits of the habeas petition are decided. ... Accordingly, Petitioner's Application is DENIED.”
Cautions
She treats the certified bond-eligible class in a related class action (Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz / Noem) as controlling: when a petitioner falls within that class, she orders the relief the class judgment specifies (an individualized bond hearing, or release if one is not timely held) rather than independently re-litigating the underlying due-process question.
“Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner appears to be a member of the bond-eligible class in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz ... The Court agrees.”
She enforces procedural correctness strictly: when a petitioner filed what was effectively a duplicate of an already-pending petition (after a clerical intra-district transfer produced two case numbers for the same filing), she dismissed the duplicate with prejudice as to that filing and ordered the corrected petition refiled in the surviving case.
“Because duplicative cases are impermissible, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice. Petitioner is ordered to file the corrected petition, with the required signatures, as a ‘First Amended Petition’ in Ernesto Nieto v. Todd M. Lyons et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-02952-DMK within 48 hours of service of this Order.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Petition as follows: (1) Respondents must release Petitioner from custody immediately on Petitioner's prior conditions of release”
“Respondents must release Petitioners from custody within 24 hours of entry of this Order, and on each of Petitioners' prior conditions of release”
“the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to establish that she is entitled to habeas relief pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 2241, and therefore DENIES the petition without prejudice.”
“the Mathews factors weigh in favor of granting the Petition ... (1) Respondents must release Petitioner from custody immediately”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Petition as follows: (1) Respondents must release Petitioner from custody immediately on Petitioner's prior conditions of release”
“the Court GRANTS the Petition and orders that Petitioner be provided with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proof, within seven (7) days”
“Accordingly, the Petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED IN PART. It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Within seven (7) days of this Order, Respondents shall afford Petitioner a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before an immigration judge.”
“Petitioner's First Request for Relief is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is GRANTED as follows: (1) Respondents must release Petitioner from custody immediately”
“Respondents are DIRECTED to release Petitioner Santos Francisco Mantanico Puac ... FORTHWITH.”
“the petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is GRANTED. Petitioner ... is hereby ORDERED RELEASED from ICE custody immediately”
“the petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is GRANTED. Petitioner Karen Maria Ampie ... is hereby ORDERED RELEASED from ICE custody immediately”
“So construed, the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Her docket to date consists almost entirely of 28 U.S.C.
- Section 2241 habeas corpus petitions filed by noncitizens detained at the Adelanto Detention Facility, the Desert View Detention Facility/Annex, and similar Southern California ICE facilities, challenging re-detention after a period of conditional release.
- One criminal matter, United States v. Jucup-Perez, had no order signed by her at the evidence cutoff and is not counted.
- Given the single-case-type nature of this docket, the caseload mix below is intentionally narrow rather than a general civil or criminal profile.
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 Kwok: 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 Kwok with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kwok, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kwok's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace