Sheri N. Pym
How Judge Pym rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pym
Sheri N. Pym became a U.S. magistrate judge for the Central District of California in April 2011 and sits in Riverside. She previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney and chief of that office’s Riverside branch. She graduated from Williams College and the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.
Judge Pym's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pym, 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 ↗
- Blank 2018 Settlement Order.pdf ↗
- SAMPLE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Counsel are not allowed to contact the magistrate judge’s law clerks, or to communicate with chambers by means of the Court’s email address other than to email proposed orders.
“Counsel are not allowed to contact the magistrate judge’s law clerks, or to communicate with chambers by means of the Court’s email address other than to email proposed orders.”
Filing
Chambers copies may be submitted without blue backs.
“Chambers copies do not have to be blue-backed.”
Conferences
Contact the courtroom deputy for settlement conference dates at least 45 days before the settlement cutoff.
“Parties should contact the CRD about available dates for settlement conferences (at least 45 days in advance of the settlement cut-off date).”
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 Pym decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a benefits remand, the court required the administrative decisionmaker to reconcile vocational testimony with the occupational evidence rather than accept an unexplained conflict.
“The ALJ erred in failing to obtain a reasonable explanation for the VE’s deviation from the DOT or resolving the apparent conflict.”
In a consent immigration case, the court found that release on parole created a protected liberty interest and that all three procedural-due-process factors favored the petitioner after re-detention without a prior hearing.
“In sum, given petitioner’s strong interest in being free from immigration detention, the high risk of erroneous deprivation of his liberty interest, the high value of additional procedural safeguards, and the lack of government interest in detaining petitioner without additional process, all three of the Mathews factors strongly favor petitioner.”
The court granted emergency release where the petitioner showed both a strong merits case and unusually urgent, case-specific harm that a later bond hearing would not cure.
“The inability to do so because of a detention scheme previously found unlawful by this court constitutes an irreparable injury of the highest order.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits, and REMANDING the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative action consistent with this decision.”
“ORDER AWARDING EAJA FEES by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. Fees and expenses in the amount of $5,400.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412 be awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation. (kca)”
“IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is REVERSED and this matter REMANDED, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order filed contemporaneously with the filing of this Judgment.”
“ORDER AWARDING EAJA FEES by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. Fees and expenses in the amount of $3,250.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, be awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation. (kca)”
“IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is REVERSED and this matter REMANDED, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order filed contemporaneously with the filing of this Judgment.”
“ORDER AWARDING EAJA FEES by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. Gees and expenses in the amount of $3,630.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and costs in the amount of $400.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920, be awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation. (kca)”
“IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is REVERSED and this matter REMANDED, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order filed contemporaneously with the filing of this Judgment.”
“ORDER AWARDING EAJA FEES by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. Gees and expenses in the amount of $2700 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412 be awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation. (kca)”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits, and REMANDING the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative action consistent with this decision.”
“ORDER AWARDING EAJA FEES by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. Fees under theEqual Access to Justice Act, (‘EAJA) in the amount of TWO THOUSAND FIVEHUNDRED DOLLARS and 00/cents ($2,500.00), as authorized by 28 U.S.C. §2412 (d), and subject to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. (kca)”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits, and REMANDING the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative action consistent with this decision.”
“ORDER AWARDING EAJA FEES by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. Fees are awarded in the amount of TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTY-TWO DOLLARS AND 18/100 ($2,142.18) subject to the terms of the stipulation. (kca)”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed dockets combine nine closed benefits cases with ten immigration-detention matters filed in 2026. The recent additions all had signed final judgments; their filing-to-decision intervals ranged from seventeen to eighty-five days. These selected cases do not describe the judge’s wider consent and referral caseload.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| 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 Pym: 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 Pym with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pym, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pym's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace