Karen L. Stevenson
How Judge Stevenson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In her Social Security appeals, when an ALJ gives a medical opinion substantial weight but then departs from part of that same opinion without explanation, she treats the omission as reversible error rather than harmless -- in Faye Schrig's case, the ALJ credited a state-agency physician's opinion generally but silently ignored his specific finding that the claimant had exertional limitations, which the court found undermined the entire non-disability finding.
“Although the ALJ considered the opinions of Dr. Hughes and assigned substantial weight to his opinions, the ALJ did not provide any explanation for rejecting Hughes's specific findings of exertional limitations... the ALJ's error was not 'inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination,' and further proceedings are warranted.”
Conversely, she will affirm a credibility finding built on routine, conservative treatment and a claimant's demonstrated daily activities, even where some of the ALJ's individual reasons are debatable, so long as at least one clear and convincing reason survives -- in Medhat Boles's case she upheld the ALJ's adverse credibility finding based on conservative treatment alone once the daily-activities reasoning was set aside as potentially weaker.
“Even assuming the ALJ erred in discounting plaintiff's subjective symptom testimony based on plaintiff's daily activities, any error is harmless because the ALJ's remaining reasons for discounting plaintiff's subjective symptom testimony are clear and convincing and supported by substantial evidence.”
In her 2026 immigration-detention habeas docket, when the government's answer does not affirmatively rebut a petitioner's showing of prolonged detention without a foreseeable removal date, she treats that silence as an effective concession and shifts straight to granting relief under the Zadvydas due-process framework.
“In their Answer, Respondents only discuss administrative exhaustion. Respondents do not provide any evidence of Petitioner's impending removal to rebut Petitioner's showing. Thus, Respondents effectively concede the issue of Petitioner's prolonged detention without a significant likelihood of Petitioner's removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
Procedural preferences
On her consent Social Security docket she consistently takes the parties' Joint Stipulation under submission without oral argument, deciding the appeal on the papers.
“The parties have consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge... and the Court has taken the matter under submission without oral argument.”
On her habeas dockets she uses an order to show cause before dismissing for lack of prosecution or mootness, giving the petitioner a real opportunity to respond and a clear, bolded warning of the consequence, rather than dismissing sua sponte on the first sign of inactivity.
“The Court warned Petitioner in bold letters 'that the failure to timely respond to this Order to Show Cause WILL result in the Court entering judgment dismissing this action with prejudice.'”
Cautions
She will dismiss a habeas petition with prejudice for failure to prosecute once a petitioner ignores an order to show cause, even where the underlying claim might otherwise have some merit -- self-represented litigants and their counsel must keep the court informed of their address and respond to deadlines or risk losing the case outright.
“This case has been on the Court's docket since May 25, 2023, and approximately ten months have passed since Petitioner has made any contact with the Court concerning this case... the Court finds the delay to be unreasonable and presumes prejudice.”
In immigration-detention habeas matters she does not require exhaustion of administrative bond-hearing remedies before ruling on a constitutional detention claim, so counsel should not assume they must first return to the immigration court before seeking habeas relief on a due-process theory.
“the Court finds that the Puga factors do not weigh in favor of requiring prudential exhaustion. First, the BIA's expertise is not necessary to decide the legal questions at issue here -- whether Petitioner's continued detention complies with statutory authority and due process.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the FAP is dismissed as MOOT; and (2) JUDGMENT shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above-captioned action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the terms of the Stipulation to Remand.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above captioned action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the terms of the Stipulation to Remand.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above-captioned action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the Stipulation to Remand.”
“A writ of habeas corpus is hereby issued requiring Respondents to immediately release Petitioner (A#245-951-342) and preventing Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner unless Respondents demonstrate changed circumstances that Petitioner's removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future and provide Petitioner adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.”
“IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Respondent's Motion To Dismiss is GRANTED; (2) the Petition is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as untimely; and (3) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is REMANDED for reconsideration of the weight accorded to the various medical evidence in Plaintiff's file, including the source opinions of treating and non-treating providers.”
“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.”
“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
A sample of her assigned cases drawn from the docket record. Her longest-running docket is consent Social Security disability appeals (42 U.S.C. 405(g)), heavily represented from 2015-2016 as she took over her predecessor's pending consent cases, and continuing today, with recent filings now ending mostly in a stipulated remand rather than a litigated merits ruling. Since 2023 her caseload has grown to include a consent habeas corpus docket, with a marked recent shift toward 28 U.S.C. 2241 petitions challenging immigration detention -- often resolved within days to a few weeks, sometimes after full contested briefing on due-process grounds. She also carries a general civil calendar of ADA Title III access suits, copyright and contract disputes, consumer and employment matters, insurance coverage, and petty-offense criminal matters, as an ordinary part of a Central District magistrate's docket.
Put Judge Stevenson's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Stevenson actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Stevenson's own signed orders and cites them.