Karen L. Stevenson
How Judge Stevenson rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Stevenson
Karen L. Stevenson has served as a United States magistrate judge for the Central District of California since August 2015 and as its chief magistrate judge since January 2023. Before joining the court, she practiced commercial litigation in Los Angeles. She earned degrees from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Oxford University, and Stanford Law School.
Judge Stevenson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Stevenson, 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
Mandatory chambers copies of all e-filed documents (except as described in Procedure 8 for Under Seal Documents) must be delivered to the chambers copy box on the 12th Floor by noon on the court day following the date of filing as required by Local Civil Rule 5-4.5.
“Mandatory chambers copies of all e-filed documents (except as described in Procedure 8 for Under Seal Documents) must be delivered to the chambers copy box on the 12th Floor by noon on the court day following the date of filing as required by Local Civil Rule 5-4.5.”
Discovery
No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference unless the movant has obtained leave of Court sought by an ex parte application.
“No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference unless the movant has obtained leave of Court sought by an ex parte application.”
Conferences
Any party who wishes to appear at a hearing by telephone shall make such a request at least two court days before the hearing.
“Any party who wishes to appear at a hearing by telephone shall make such a request at least two court days before the hearing.”
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 Stevenson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Schrig v. Colvin, Stevenson remanded because the ALJ gave Dr. Hughes’s opinion substantial weight but did not explain why he rejected that opinion’s exertional limitation, an error she found consequential to the disability decision.
“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.”
In Boles v. Colvin, Stevenson affirmed the disability decision, finding that any error in relying on Boles’s daily activities to discount his symptom testimony was harmless because the ALJ’s remaining reasons were supported by substantial evidence.
“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 Alvarez-Guatibonza, Stevenson found that the government effectively conceded the absence of a reasonably foreseeable removal when its Answer supplied no rebuttal evidence, and she granted the prolonged detention petition.
“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.”
For a person previously released on humanitarian parole, the judge weighed the established liberty interest and lack of a pre-detention hearing under the three Mathews factors, then ordered release when the government did not show changed circumstances justifying detention.
“On balance, the Mathews factors demonstrate that Petitioner’s detention without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing violated his right to procedural due process.”
Procedural preferences
In Baldree v. Commissioner, Stevenson took the parties’ submissions under consideration without oral argument before deciding the Social Security appeal.
“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.”
In McSweeny, Stevenson warned the petitioner through an order to show cause that failure to respond could lead to dismissal with prejudice, then dismissed after no response arrived.
“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
In McSweeny, Stevenson dismissed a released prisoner’s sentence-credit petition as moot and entered judgment with prejudice after he failed to respond to an order to show cause.
“JUDGMENT shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.”
In Alvarez-Guatibonza, Stevenson declined to require prudential administrative exhaustion after weighing the Puga factors, including the legal nature of the detention and due process questions.
“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.”
In a first immigration detention lasting less than three weeks, with an initial bond determination still available and unrequested, the judge found the petitioner had not shown a procedural due process violation.
“because this is the first time he has ever been in ICE custody, Petitioner has failed to establish a procedural due process violation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“FAP is dismissed as MOOT; ... 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.
- Judge Stevenson's longest-running consent docket is Social Security disability appeals, including matters inherited when she took the bench in 2015 and a modern cohort that often ends in stipulated remand.
- Since 2023 her consent habeas calendar has grown, with a marked shift toward immigration-detention petitions that can resolve within days or weeks.
- Her other work includes accessibility, copyright, contract, consumer, employment, insurance, and petty-offense matters.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Stevenson: 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 Stevenson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Stevenson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Stevenson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace