Steve Kim
How Judge Kim rules, drawn from 45 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kim
Steve Kim has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Central District of California since April 2016 and began a second term in April 2024. He previously served as a federal prosecutor in that district and worked in private litigation and digital forensics. He earned a law degree from Georgetown University Law Center.
Judge Kim's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kim, 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 ↗
- SK - Standing Order on Civil Discovery (updated May 2025) ↗
- SK - Supplemental LR 37-1 Certification of Counsel (PDF) ↗
- SK - Supplemental LR 37-1 Certification of Counsel (Word Fillable) ↗
- SK - ESI Conference Checklist ↗
- SK - Model Stipulated E-Discovery Order (Word) ↗
- SK - Stipulated Protective Order 12.10.2024 Update (PDF) ↗
- SK - Stipulated Protective Order 12.10.2024 Update (Word) ↗
- SK - Hyperlinking Attorneys in Microsoft Word ↗
- SK - Civil Under Seal Procedures ↗
- SK - Criminal Under Seal Procedures ↗
- SK - Request for Informal Discovery Conference ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Parties and counsel are not allowed to contact the Court’s law clerks or to communicate with Chambers by any means, except as expressly provided herein or otherwise ordered by the Court.
“Parties and counsel are not allowed to contact the Court’s law clerks or to communicate with Chambers by any means, except as expressly provided herein or otherwise ordered by the Court.”
Filing
Electronic copies of proposed orders must be emailed to chambers in Microsoft Word format to [email protected].
“Electronic copies of proposed orders must be emailed to chambers in Microsoft Word format to [email protected].”
Discovery
Read Judge Kim’s standing discovery order before filing a discovery motion.
“IMPORTANT: Before filing a discovery motion, all counsel must read and be familiar with Judge Kim's Standing Order on Civil Discovery, available for download below.”
Discovery
A telephone-only prefiling discovery conference is allowed only when a video conference is technologically infeasible.
“Conference by telephone alone may be done only if videoconference is technologically infeasible (a vanishingly uncommon situation).”
Conferences
Counsel wishing to request a remote appearance in civil cases must do so in writing by no later than 14 calendar days before the noticed hearing date, with the understanding that in certain cases the Court may be limited by any applicable bans or restrictions on live streaming or broadcasting of audio or video to the public.
“Counsel wishing to request a remote appearance in civil cases must do so in writing by no later than 14 calendar days before the noticed hearing date, with the understanding that in certain cases the Court may be limited by any applicable bans or restrictions on live streaming or broadcasting of audio or video to the public.”
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 Kim decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Singh v. Bowen, Kim granted release after the government left the habeas petition’s merits unchallenged and argued only that Singh should receive a bond hearing instead.
“Where the ‘government does not offer any argument on the merits’ of the petition here, ‘it has waived any challenge to the arguments [] raised.’ ... So respondents’ raw assertion cannot carry the necessary weight—or do the responsible work—they seem to think it can.”
In Zepeda Gomez, Kim denied a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release without prejudice because it sought the same relief as the habeas petition, which was on an expedited merits schedule.
“‘judgment on the merits in the guise of preliminary relief is a highly inappropriate result.’ ... Whether Petitioner’s present confinement is lawful is the core merits question in the habeas petition and is best resolved through the expedited merits review established by General Order 26-05.”
In Evans v. United States, Kim dismissed a former military prisoner’s compassionate release motion for lack of jurisdiction because 18 U.S.C. § 3582 did not extend to his court martial sentence.
“because ‘§ 3582 does not specifically provide that it is applicable to UCMJ defendants,’ § 3551(a) deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to grant compassionate release to convicted military inmates under the First Step Act.”
Procedural preferences
In Jacobson’s consent Social Security appeal, he ordered remand to the Commissioner under the parties’ stipulation.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the terms of the Stipulation of Remand.”
In Zepeda Gomez, Kim granted a motion to enforce his order against removal and required government counsel to appear in person to show cause why the government should not be held in contempt after it again sought to remove the petitioner.
“MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDER ...; (2) REQUIRING RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. Given Respondents disregard for the Courts order enjoining removal, the Court GRANTS Petitioners Second Motion to Enforce Court Order ... counsel for Respondents is ORDERED to appear in person ... to show cause why the Government should not be held in contempt.”
In a consent habeas matter, when the government neither appeared nor answered within the accelerated schedule and sought no extension, the judge treated the petition as intentionally unopposed and ordered release.
“The Court thus construes the § 2241 petition as intentionally unopposed.”
Cautions
In Espinosa’s habeas case, he entered judgment dismissing the petition and the action with prejudice.
“IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.”
In Zepeda Gomez, Kim denied the request for immediate release by temporary restraining order without prejudice while reserving the merits and remedy questions for expedited habeas review.
“Petitioner’s request for immediate release from custody through the application for temporary restraining order is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Nothing in that order, however, is intended to foreshadow the Court’s view on the merits of the petition.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and the action dismissed with prejudice.”
“ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AS MOOT by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. Because Petitioner has been released from federal custody, his Petition is moot. THEREFORE, the Petition is ordered DISMISSED, and Judgment shall be entered accordingly.”
“ORDER OF REMAND by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the terms of the Stipulation of Remand.”
“JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. It is the judgment of this Court that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendant.”
“JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is reversed and remanded for further proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and consistent with the accompanying Opinion and Order.”
“JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is reversed and remanded for further proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and consistent with the accompanying Opinion and Order.”
“JUDGMENT OF REMAND by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. 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.”
“JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is reversed and remanded to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.”
“JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ oh habeas corpus is dismissed and the action dismissed without prejudice.”
“JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. Related to: Order Dismissing Petition. IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.”
“ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. ... Section 1252(g) of the INA removes the Courts jurisdiction to review that discretionary enforcement decision. Therefore, the temporary restraining order (ECF No. 9) is dissolved, the request for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 11) is denied, and the Complaint and Petition (ECF No. 1) are ordered dismissed.”
“ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim, re Stipulation to Dismiss Case. The above captioned matter is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own fees, costs, and expenses.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled docket spans consent Social Security appeals, state and federal habeas petitions, and general civil matters. The 2026 intake is dominated by immigration-detention habeas cases. In the latest terminated cohort, six petitions were granted, one was conditionally granted in part, and one was denied as moot after removal; those eight matters were resolved 1 to 15 days after filing.
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 | 2 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 14 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 1 |
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 Kim: 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 Kim with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kim, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kim's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace