John D. Early

United States District Court for the Central District of California magistrate 9 signed orders read

How Judge Early decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Procedural preferences

Runs a tightly managed Social Security joint-submission calendar and will issue an order to show cause re sanctions when parties miss the joint-submission deadline.

“ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE POTENTIAL SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE JOINT SUBMISSION by Magistrate Judge John D. Early. The parties are ordered to show cause in writing by August 7, 2020, why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to comply with the Order.”

Motion outcomes

Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.

Social security appeal
N = 9
Granted: 2Denied: 7 counts only

A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Maria Sanchez Magallanes v. Andrew Saul
2:19-cv-08600 · 2020-09-08
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order.”

Deborah Kaye Banks v. Andrew Saul
2:20-cv-01703 · 2020-11-25
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner and dismissing this action with prejudice.”

Bertha Elizarraras v. Nancy A. Berryhill
2:19-cv-05133 · 2020
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the decision”

Kyoko Marie Hawkins v. Leland Dudek
5:25-cv-01003 · 2025
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision”

Kelli C. Shultz v. Kilolo Kijakazi
2:22-cv-03626 · 2023
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision”

Marvin Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:22-cv-07961 · 2023
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision”

Judy Fulton v. Andrew Saul
5:19-cv-02225 · 2020
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision”

Susana Hernandez-Rios v. Andrew Saul
2:19-cv-09338 · 2020
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision”

Ruby Villanera v. Nancy A. Berryhill
8:19-cv-00871 · 2020
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 308 days (N = 2).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 23 days (N = 1).

Early's enumerable consent docket is dominated by Social Security disability appeals (864) on which he is the assigned/deciding judge under 636(c). He also serves as a designated referral magistrate on complex civil and MDL-style cases for district judges (e.g. In re Kia Engine Litigation, 8:17-cv-00838, referred by D.J. Josephine L. Staton; Courthouse News Service v. Yamasaki). Like other cacd magistrates he now also carries a share of the 2026 alien-detainee 2241 habeas duty load (e.g. Nelson v. CDCR, per registry).