Dennis M. Cota
How Judge Cota rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Cota no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Cota
Dennis M. Cota served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of California from September 2018 until his retirement on September 2, 2026. Before joining the court, he practiced civil litigation and taught trial practice at the University of California, Davis School of Law.
How Judge Cota decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Ballesteros v. Commissioner of Social Security, Cota remanded for further proceedings because additional medical records presented a reasonable possibility of a different disability determination.
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21) is granted;”
Cautions
In Woolbert v. Commissioner of Social Security, Cota affirmed the denial of benefits after the vocational expert clarified that the cited job testimony was based on experience rather than the Dictionary of Occupational Titles; the claimant did not challenge the residual functional capacity finding.
“the vocational expert responded that they were not.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 14, is denied;”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21) is granted;”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 12 and 22, is granted; 2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 18, is denied; 3. The Commissioner's final decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order”
“the undersigned recommends that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 16, be granted; 2. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 18, be denied; and 3. The Commissioner's final decision be reversed and this matter be remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings and recommendations.”
“the undersigned recommends that Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 55, be granted. Given the absence of a triable issue on Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim as against Defendant Wetterer, Defendant's assertion of qualified immunity does not bear evaluation here.”
“the undersigned recommends that Defendant's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 114, be DENIED and that Defendant be required to file an answer to Plaintiff's third amended complaint.”
“It is RECOMMENDED that Defendants' partial motion to dismiss, ECF No. 26, be GRANTED. ... It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's First Amendment access-to-courts claim be DISMISSED as against all defendants without leave to amend for failure to allege an actual injury. ... It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Blanco and Hougland be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“Respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted, but without prejudice to Petitioner's ability to clearly allege facts which might place the case within a Lackawanna exception.”
“Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) be granted.”
“It is RECOMMENDED that Defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF No. 35, be granted and that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders.”
“Plaintiff has not demonstrated that reconsideration under Rule 60(a) or (b) is warranted. ... 1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 24, is denied.”
During statutory screening, he dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because a missing page made the pleading physically incomplete and prevented a merits review. The order stated: "the Court is unable to conduct the statutory screening process because Plaintiff's complaint is incomplete ... 1. Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend."
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Cota is the consent (636(c)) assigned magistrate judge on a Social Security disability docket inherited at the court-wide reassignment when he took the bench in September 2018; he enters the final consent judgment. His broader referral docket carries prisoner civil-rights (42 U.S.C. 1983) and habeas (28 U.S.C. 2254) matters.
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 | 7 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 7 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 6 | 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.
A historical record
Judge Cota no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.