Chi Soo Kim
How Judge Kim rules, drawn from 6 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kim
Chi Soo Kim is a United States Magistrate Judge in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. She joined the bench in March 2024 after serving as an Assistant United States Attorney for that district.
Judge Kim's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kim, 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.
- Case Management Procedures and Motion Schedule ↗
- Standing Order in Civil Cases ↗
- Civil Trial Procedures ↗
Key rules
Filing
Counsel must email a Word version of a proposed order as well as filing it in CM/ECF.
“in addition to filing proposed orders in CM/ECF, counsel shall also submit by email to [email protected] the proposed order accompanying any application, request, stipulation, or motion in Microsoft Word format.”
Filing
The subject line of the proposed-order email must include “proposed order” and the case number.
“The email subject line must contain the words ‘proposed order’ and the case number.”
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 Kim decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Collins v. Kurgan, Kim considered the plaintiff's verified complaint and full deposition when recommending denial of the defendants' summary judgment motion. She found that the prison disciplinary finding for assaulting staff did not itself bar the plaintiff's excessive force claim under Heck.
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 59) be denied, and this action be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. ... Thus, defendants' motion for summary judgment should be denied, because plaintiff's excessive force claims are not barred by Heck.”
Recognizes that release under an immigration order of supervision can create a protected liberty interest, then applies Mathews to decide whether the government's revocation process supplied due process.
“This Court therefore finds that Petitioner’s prior release under an Order of Supervision gave rise to a constitutionally protected liberty interest.”
Procedural preferences
In Le v. Trump, Kim denied the plaintiff’s motions to compel while the case was still in screening, before any defendant had been served or discovery had begun.
“This action is currently in the screening stage and therefore no defendants have been served and discovery has not yet commenced. ... Plaintiff's motions to compel (ECF No. 12, 18, 20) are DENIED”
Cautions
In Bisi v. Chase Bank, Kim struck two affidavits attached to the complaint because they did not qualify as pleading exhibits under Rule 10(c) and did not support the pleaded claims.
“Defendant's motion to strike the affidavits of William McCaffrey and Joseph Esquivel Jr. attached to the Complaint is GRANTED (ECF No. 6)”
Treats counsel as responsible for verifying every cited authority and warns that generative AI should not be used to check citations, even when the court ultimately declines sanctions after remediation and candor.
“They should not be used to verify legal authority and citations, especially when generative AI tools were used to generate or identify the legal authority and citations being checked.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is FURTHER HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) be GRANTED; and 2. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice; and 3. Plaintiffs be given thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. [ADOPTED in full by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2024-09-16: 'ADOPTING 20 Findings and Recommendations in full, GRANTING 6 Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend']”
“Defendant's motion to strike the affidavits of William McCaffrey and Joseph Esquivel Jr. attached to the Complaint is GRANTED (ECF No. 6)”
“The Court denies this motion as premature given that the pleadings in this case are not yet settled. ... Plaintiff's motion to set a date (ECF No. 15) is DENIED”
“it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff's motions and request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 14, 17) be DENIED; 2. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.”
“Plaintiff's motions for a hearing (ECF Nos. 6, 13) and motions to compel (ECF Nos. 12, 18, 20) are therefore DENIED. ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motions for a hearing (ECF Nos. 6, 13) are DENIED”
“This action is currently in the screening stage and therefore no defendants have been served and discovery has not yet commenced. ... Plaintiff's motions to compel (ECF No. 12, 18, 20) are DENIED”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 59) be denied, and this action be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. ... Thus, defendants' motion for summary judgment should be denied, because plaintiff's excessive force claims are not barred by Heck.”
“Plaintiff's request that the Court view camera footage from the November 5, 2022 incident (ECF No. 67) is denied.”
“The government’s request to dismiss all improperly named respondents is GRANTED, and respondents Moises Becerra, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi are dismissed.”
“Petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.”
“The First Amended Petition (ECF No. 28) is denied.”
“Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32) is denied as moot.”
After counsel and a law student used ChatGPT in briefs containing hallucinated citations, Kim discharged her court-initiated show-cause order without sanctions. She credited their candor, remorse, new written AI-use policy, and completed training, while warning that generative AI should not be used to verify authorities and citations. Because the show-cause process was court-initiated rather than a party motion, this order is excluded from motion statistics.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Kim joined the Sacramento bench in March 2024. In addition to referred pretrial work, she carries a substantial consent Social Security caseload in which she enters final judgments, including matters inherited from her predecessor. Her broader assignments include pro se prisoner civil-rights, habeas, employment, and consumer warranty cases.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 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 Eastern 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 | 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 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