Stephen V. Wilson
How Judge Wilson rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wilson
Stephen Victor Wilson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Wilson received a commission on October 17, 1985.
Judge Wilson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wilson, 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
NO COURTESY COPIES ARE REQUIRED PENDING FURTHER NOTICE.
“NO COURTESY COPIES ARE REQUIRED PENDING FURTHER NOTICE.”
Motions
Civil motions are heard on Mondays, Time: 1:30 p.m.
“Civil motions are heard on Mondays, Time: 1:30 p.m.”
Conferences
Requests for remote appearances must be filed a week prior to the proceeding.
“Requests for remote appearances must be filed a week prior to the proceeding.”
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 Wilson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Alberghetti v. Corbis, he granted the defendant summary judgment on publicity-rights and unjust-enrichment claims under California's two-year limitations period.
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [73] ... Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims.”
In an immigration habeas case, the court required a new bond hearing because the governing injunction placed scheduling and notice duties on the government.
“requires that the government schedule the hearing ‘automatically’”
Procedural preferences
In Daniels v. SCME Mortgage Bankers, he dismissed the amended federal claims with prejudice after prior opportunities to plead them and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
“the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiffs causes of action under federal law. ... Accordingly, the entire action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
In one image-licensing summary judgment dispute, the court treated the moving party's facts as uncontroverted after the opponent omitted the separate statement required by the local rules.
“As such, the Court finds the facts are uncontroverted.”
In a labor-law dispute, the court granted an unopposed dismissal motion under the local rules without reaching its merits.
“The failure to oppose Defendant’s motion is alone grounds for granting the motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-12.”
Cautions
In Harrison v. Catholic Healthcare West Group Long Term Disability Plan, he granted the administrator summary judgment after finding it had not abused its discretion when it terminated the plaintiff's disability benefits.
“ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Masterfoods now brings before the Court its Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.”
“ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiffs causes of action under federal law. ... Accordingly, the entire action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [73] ... Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims.”
“AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO HER FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983”
“GRANTING INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION [45][50]”
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO., NESTLE U.S.A., AND CAR-GILL INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM”
“Judgment shall be entered granting the Petition in part, and ordering Respondents to release Petitioner from detention immediately, subject to the conditions of his previous supervision.”
“For the reasons stated, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity on Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment cause of action is GRANTED. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity on Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment cause of action is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Claims 1 and 5 may be amended, if possible, to show facts that justify equitable tolling.”
“As all claims have been dismissed, the Motion to Strike is DENIED as MOOT.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338. The Court ORDERS that the action be REMANDED to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed 2026 assignments are dominated by pending alien-detainee habeas petitions, with additional immigration, disability-access, consumer, patent, product-liability, and other civil matters. Five terminated matters in the refresh window were reviewed; four ended voluntarily, while Aakash Nepal obtained partial habeas relief and immediate release.
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 | 10 |
| 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 10 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 5 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 14 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 6 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 9 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 24 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 14 | 10 |
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 Wilson: 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 Wilson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wilson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wilson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace