Erica P. Grosjean
How Judge Grosjean rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Grosjean
Erica P. Grosjean became a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of California in October 2015. She earned a bachelor's degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and a law degree from Harvard Law School. Before joining the bench, she clerked for Ninth Circuit Judge Herbert Choy and practiced at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
Judge Grosjean's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Grosjean, 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.
Key rules
Motions
Hearing dates need not be cleared with the courtroom deputy before filing a motion.
“Hearing dates do not need to be cleared by the Courtroom Deputy prior to the filing of the motion.”
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 Grosjean decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Freeman's prisoner civil-rights case, she recommended granting Clark and Bell's dismissal motion; the district judge later adopted the recommendation and dismissed those defendants without further leave to amend.
“Defendant Clark and Bell’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 20) is GRANTED.”
In Jakubowski v. Clendenin, Grosjean recommended denying a motion to dismiss the civil detainee’s treatment and punishment claims because the defendants relied on authorities addressing convicted prisoners rather than civil detainees.
“Because none of these authorities address the rights of civil detainees, they have no bearing on Plaintiff’s claims.”
Procedural preferences
In Ransom v. Herrera, Grosjean recommended granting the defendants’ summary judgment motion in part and denying it in part, leaving the substantive due process, retaliation, and conspiracy claims for trial.
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 223) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;”
In Verhines v. Weber, Grosjean recommended treating the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and the related preliminary injunction motion as moot after allowing a second amended complaint.
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint be denied as moot. (ECF No. 40).”
Cautions
In Ransom's prisoner civil-rights case, she recommended denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 235) is DENIED;”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations, recommending that 'Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 20) be GRANTED,' and that '[d]efendants Clark and Bell be dismissed from this action, without further leave to amend.' ... The findings and recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on September 22, 2022 (Doc. 35), are ADOPTED IN FULL.”
“On December 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations, recommending that both motions to dismiss be granted. (ECF No. 61). ... 2. Defendant Herrera and Castro's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, with leave to amend;”
“On December 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations, recommending that both motions to dismiss be granted. (ECF No. 61). ... 3. Defendant Brannum's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, with leave to amend;”
“1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 223) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 2. This case proceed only on Plaintiff's Devereaux substantive due process claim, retaliation claim, and conspiracy claim, and that Defendants be GRANTED summary judgment as to all other claims; 3. Defendants' summary judgment motion be DENIED as to damages”
“4. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 235) be DENIED;”
“5. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice (ECF No. 206) be DENIED; and”
“6. Plaintiff's motion to strike the amended declaration of B. Feinberg, MD (ECF No. 228) be DENIED.”
During statutory screening, Grosjean recommended allowing the conspiracy, First Amendment retaliation, excessive-force, and failure-to-protect claims against one defendant to proceed while dismissing all other claims and defendants without prejudice. The district judge adopted the recommendation in full: 'This case proceed on Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Garcia... and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed.'
During statutory screening, Grosjean recommended allowing the Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against one defendant to proceed while dismissing all other claims and defendants. The district judge adopted the recommendation in full: 'This case proceed on Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Jacobsen for failure to protect... and that all other claims and defendants... be dismissed.'
After the plaintiff stopped prosecuting the case, Grosjean recommended dismissal without prejudice. The district judge adopted the recommendation in full: 'This case be dismissed, without prejudice, because of Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.'
“motion to dismiss (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED”
“motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) be denied”
“motion to strike (ECF No. 26) be denied”
“No. 15) be denied”
“(ECF No. 42) be granted”
“requests for judicial notice be denied”
“The Findings and Recommendations dated February 18, 2025 (Doc. 16) are ADOPTED in full. 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Doc. 54, is GRANTED IN PART insofar as plaintiff is permitted to file the second amended complaint to proceed only on his First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause claims regarding California’s filing-fee and signature-in-lieu requirements as set forth in his lodged second amended complaint. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED IN PART insofar as plaintiff shall not be permitted to proceed on his newly proposed claim regarding his access to a voter guide.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, Doc. 40, is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Doc. 45, is DENIED as moot.”
“For the reasons given above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant be denied costs.”
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 Eastern District of California, not for Judge Grosjean: 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 Grosjean with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Grosjean, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Grosjean's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace