John D. Early
How Judge Early rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Early
John D. Early has served as a United States magistrate judge for the Central District of California since February 2017. He earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1990 and a law degree from UCLA School of Law in 1993.
Judge Early's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Early, 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 ↗
- Stipulated Protective Order.doc rev 2.16.18 ↗
- Stipulated Protective Order.pdf rev 2.16.18 ↗
Key rules
Filing
Email Microsoft Word copies of proposed orders for criminal duty matters to the court’s criminal duty address.
“Microsoft Word versions of all proposed orders submitted with criminal duty matters shall be e-mailed to [email protected]”
Motions
Motion hearings are Thursdays at 10 a.m.; an open date need not be cleared with the courtroom deputy.
“Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. A motion hearing date need not be cleared with the Courtroom Deputy Clerk (‘CRD’) if the date selected is not closed.”
Conferences
After a settlement conference is ordered, jointly contact the courtroom deputy with three proposed dates at least four weeks in advance.
“SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES: If a settlement conference has been ordered, the parties should jointly contact the CRD with at least three proposed dates at least four weeks before the requested conference.”
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 Early decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In two July 2026 consent habeas cases, an answer that offered no opposition materially supported prompt release relief; Early treated the undisputed detention facts and the government's stated non-opposition as sufficient to decide the petition without further merits briefing.
“Respondents concede they do not have an opposition argument to present. Dkt. 10.”
Procedural preferences
In Sanchez Magallanes’s Social Security case, he ordered the parties to explain why sanctions should not follow their late joint submission.
“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.”
In Vega-Martinez’s later detention action, Early dismissed the case because it duplicated an earlier proceeding and was improperly filed as a next friend action.
“This action is dismissed as duplicative and is improperly brought as a next friend action.”
Cautions
When an earlier habeas order requires a reasoned bond decision, a bare one-sentence flight-risk finding is not enough. In Wu, Early found that the unexplained finding violated his prior order and ordered immediate release.
“The IJ's one-sentence decision offering no explanation for finding Petitioner is a '[f]light risk, for which no amount of bond is sufficient to mitigate' fails to comply with this Order.”
In Song’s detention case, Early dismissed challenges to the immigration judge’s bond decision without prejudice because the petitioner had not exhausted the available administrative appeal.
“Petitioner’s challenges to his bond decision should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“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.”
“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner and dismissing this action with prejudice.”
“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the decision”
“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision”
“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision”
“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision”
“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision”
“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision”
“IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision”
“affirmed and this matter is dismissed with prejudice.”
“decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed and this matter is remanded”
“decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 17.0 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 25 days (N = 37).
The sampled consent matters include Social Security disability appeals and immigration-detention habeas petitions. Other reviewed assignments include civil referrals. The recently filed detention matters include both completed and pending cases.
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 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 Early: 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 Early with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Early, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Early's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace