Barbara A. McAuliffe
How Judge McAuliffe rules, drawn from 9 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McAuliffe
Barbara A. McAuliffe is a recalled United States Magistrate Judge in the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California. First appointed in 2011, she previously clerked for Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill and practiced civil litigation in California.
Judge McAuliffe's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge McAuliffe, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
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 9, 2026).
How Judge McAuliffe decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In See v. Rivas, she found that body-camera footage contradicted the plaintiff's account of his interaction with Officer Rivera and recommended summary judgment for the defendants.
“Plaintiff’s assertions regarding his contact with Defendant Rivera are contradicted by the video footage, which demonstrates not only that Defendant Rivera did not witness the altercation, but also that at all times during his interactions with Defendant Rivera, Plaintiff was conscious, responsive, coherent, able to stand and walk on his own, and that Plaintiff declined medical treatment when asked.”
Procedural preferences
In Eidem v. Allison, she granted the plaintiff's request to substitute retained counsel in place of self-representation.
“The Court HEREBY ORDERS that the request for substitution, (ECF No. 15), is GRANTED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
In a prisoner civil-rights case temporarily referred to her, McAuliffe recommended dismissal without prejudice after the plaintiff stopped updating his address and court mail was repeatedly returned as undeliverable. District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff adopted the recommendation after de novo review. Applying the five-factor failure-to-prosecute test, she found dismissal appropriate because the plaintiff had ceased communicating and no lesser sanction was available.
During statutory screening of a pro se prisoner's amended complaint, McAuliffe found the pleading failed Rule 8 and did not state an Eighth Amendment claim. The allegations described verbal sexual harassment without physical contact, which the cited circuit authority did not treat as sufficiently serious to violate the Constitution. Because the plaintiff had already received an opportunity to amend, she recommended dismissal without further leave.
“The Court HEREBY ORDERS that the request for substitution, (ECF No. 15), is GRANTED.”
After a pro se plaintiff appeared to miss the deadline for a second amended complaint, McAuliffe recommended dismissal for failure to obey court orders, prosecute, or state a claim. When the new complaint was docketed the next day with a timely filing date, she promptly vacated that recommendation and returned the case to screening.
“For the reasons stated, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:”
“Plaintiff Jacob Payne’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Response to Defendants Morse and Pfeiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 137), is DENIED.”
“The Morse and Pfeiff Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 115), is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 67), be GRANTED.”
After two unsuccessful service attempts and an opportunity to provide identifying information, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing an unserved defendant without prejudice under Rule 4(m). This was a court-initiated recommendation rather than a ruling on a party motion.
“Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions, (ECF No. 68), be granted.”
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 | 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 10 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 10 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 26 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 13 | 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 Eastern District of California, not for Judge McAuliffe: 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 | 2,984 | 8.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,029 | 5.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,899 | 9.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 36 | 29.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 20 | 50.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,984 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,575 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,528 | 10.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,624 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,316 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,319 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,562 | 10.3 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 McAuliffe with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McAuliffe, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McAuliffe's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace