Rozella A. Oliver

How Judge Oliver rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Position
magistrate
Commissioned
2015-05-01
Education
Harvard College, A.B. (with honors); University of Cambridge, Trinity College (Harvard Scholar); Universidad de Barcelona (Diploma in Hispanic Studies); Stanford Law School, J.D. (1999) (with distinction)
Signed orders read
24

How Judge Oliver decides

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

What persuades

In a benefits appeal she will reverse where the ALJ rejects the claimant's subjective symptom testimony without 'specific, clear and convincing reasons,' and she holds that the lack of supporting objective medical evidence cannot be the sole basis for discounting pain testimony: the ALJ must identify the specific testimony rejected and the evidence that undermines it.

“the lack of supporting objective medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony.”

In immigration habeas cases, treats prior conditional release as a protected liberty interest and will order immediate release when the government offers no opposition, no justification for ending release, and no pre-detention safeguards.

“Given Respondent’s non-opposition (see C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12), Petitioner’s prior release status and the lack of any justification for terminating that release, and the absence of procedural safeguards accorded to Petitioner in advance of his re-detention, the Court finds that it is appropriate to grant the Petition.”

Signed rulings

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

Deanna Wright v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
8:16-cv-01294 · 2017-11-15
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and the action is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Order.”

Thomas Rangel v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
8:17-cv-01233 · 2018-05-14
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits, and REMANDING the matter for further proceedings consistent with this Order.”

John Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
5:21-cv-00707 · 2022-09-30
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings.”

Ruby Garcia v. Berryhill
5:17-cv-01573 · 2018-09-12
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.”

Bonnie Jean Raynor v. O'Malley
2:24-cv-00836 · 2024-09-09
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”

David Fink v. Kathleen Allison
2:25-cv-04727 · 2025-10-07
Motions to dismiss (respondent) Granted

“It is ordered that (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition with prejudice.”

Raymond Theus v. State of California
2:16-cv-08803 · 2018-01-30
Motions to dismiss (respondent) Granted

“The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.”

Ana G. v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:25-cv-01376 · 2026-01-09
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“AFFIRMED.”

Steven Christopher Homer v. Leland Dudek
5:24-cv-02152 · 2025-04-07
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative”

Roger T. B. v. Frank Bisignano
5:24-cv-01613 · 2025-06-06
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“Social Security is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED for further”

Damy Delmira Larios Torres v. Tim Robbins
5:26-cv-04108 · 2026-08-07
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“It is adjudged that the Petition is denied and this action is closed.”

Refugio Oswaldo Sanchez-Nieto v. Tim Robbins
5:26-cv-03909 · 2026-07-28
Habeas petition (petitioner) Granted in part

“IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition is Granted in Part and Judgment is Entered in Favor of Petitioner.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 491 days (N = 3).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 184 days (N = 3).

  • Her consent docket is built on Social Security disability appeals (Title II DIWC/863 and Title XVI SSID/864) on which she is the deciding judge under 636(c); cases reach her after a district judge refers the matter and the parties consent, and she resolves the appeal on a Joint Stipulation taken under submission without oral argument.
  • Her recent docket also carries a heavy duty-magistrate load of alien-detainee habeas petitions (28 U.S.C. 2241; Desert View, Golden State Annex, and Adelanto detention facilities), most filed and resolved or transferred within days or weeks, plus occasional consent civil and patent matters (e.g., a 2026 patent infringement case).
  • She also serves as a referral magistrate on district judges' dockets.

Draft for Judge Oliver with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Oliver, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Oliver's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace