R. Gary Klausner
How Judge Klausner rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Klausner
Robert Gary Klausner is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Klausner received a commission on November 15, 2002.
Judge Klausner's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Klausner, 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 ↗
- CIVIL COURT TRIAL ORDER (JUNE 2026).pdf ↗
- STANDING ORDER ( JUNE 2026).pdf ↗
- Criminal Order re Discovery ↗
- CRIMINAL Under Seal Procedures and Schedules ↗
- Digital Exhibit Tags ↗
- ORDER FOR JURY TRIAL (JUNE 2022) ↗
Key rules
Filing
Chambers copies are unnecessary unless the court specifically requests them.
“Mandatory chambers copies are NOT required at this time, unless specifically requested by the Court. Please refer to the Standing Order for details.”
Motions
When a Monday motion date is a holiday, use the following Tuesday; opposition or reply papers due that Monday must be filed the preceding Friday.
“If Monday is a holiday, the next motion date is Tuesday following the Monday holiday. Opposition or reply papers due on a holiday Monday shall be filed the preceding Friday.”
Discovery
Calendar discovery motions before the assigned magistrate judge.
“Discovery motions are to be calendared before the Magistrate Judge assigned.”
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 Klausner decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Denies a motion to stay-and-abey a mixed habeas petition, dismissing the petition with prejudice on the recommendation.
“Petitioner's motion to stay and abey is denied.”
On de novo review of an immigration-habeas recommendation, he rejected a post-deprivation bond hearing as an inadequate remedy for re-detention without notice or a pre-detention hearing and ordered immediate release.
“IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered granting the Petition and ordering Respondents to immediately release Petitioner under the same conditions to which he was subject prior to his re-detention.”
In Pozo-Dranguet’s immigration habeas case, the court granted release after more than a year of post-removal detention and no government answer to the petition.
“Petitioner has now been in ICE custody since July 2025—and thus detained for more than a year—without having been removed from the country”
Procedural preferences
In McKettrick’s habeas case, he reviewed the record de novo, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and dismissed the amended petition with prejudice.
“IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, and (2) Judgment be entered dismissing the First Amended Petition and the entire action with prejudice.”
In a consumer labeling case, the court treated a state-law claim seeking federal drug-law enforcement as federally preempted.
“Plaintiff's UCL claim is impliedly preempted by federal law because it exists solely by virtue of the FDCA”
In Jackson’s habeas case, the court adopted a recommendation to dismiss without prejudice because the remaining claim had not been exhausted.
“the Petition is dismissed without prejudice because the one remaining claim is unexhausted.”
Cautions
In Browne v. McCain, Klausner denied the Republican National Committee’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike the musician’s right of publicity claim arising from a campaign advertisement.
“Presently before the Court is RNC's Special Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Common Law Right of Publicity claim. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES RNC's Motion.”
In a removed small-claims case, required the corporate plaintiff to plead its claim adequately under federal rules and obtain counsel before amending.
“Thus, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety for failing to comply with Rule 8.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Petitioner's motion to stay and abey is denied.”
“it is recommended that the petition be DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“The Court concurs with and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing this action with prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, and (2) Judgment be entered dismissing the First Amended Petition and the entire action with prejudice.”
“Presently before the Court is RNC's Special Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Common Law Right of Publicity claim. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES RNC's Motion.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the Petition with prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered granting the Petition and ordering Respondents to immediately release Petitioner under the same conditions to which he was subject prior to his re-detention.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (DE 22).”
“In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion.”
“In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
“In light of the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Judgment.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion in part.”
“Plaintiff's requested relief from the deadline for his opposition is not warranted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The current intake is dominated by pending alien-detainee habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. 2241 plus consumer and disability-access suits. Sukhveer Singh supplied a final habeas grant and immediate-release order. The older sample spans intellectual property, securities, insurance, False Claims Act, consumer, habeas, and criminal 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 | 11 |
| 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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 11 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 5 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 8 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 9 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 4 |
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 Klausner: 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 Klausner with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Klausner, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Klausner's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace