Helena M. Barch-Kuchta
How Judge Barch-Kuchta rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Barch-Kuchta
Helena M. Barch-Kuchta is a United States Magistrate Judge in the Fresno and Yosemite Divisions of the Eastern District of California. She joined the bench in November 2020 after practicing commercial and insurance litigation.
Judge Barch-Kuchta's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Barch-Kuchta, 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 ↗
- Civil Procedures ↗
- Joint Scheduling Report Template ↗
Key rules
Filing
File the probation review hearing report two weeks before the review hearing.
“(Must be filed two weeks before Review Hearing)”
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 Barch-Kuchta decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Singh Singh v. California City Detention Facility, she recommended a bond hearing at which the government would have to establish danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
“At such a hearing, the government be directed that they SHALL bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk”
For removal, she enforced the 30-day deadline after finding substantial compliance with service requirements and also treated lack of unanimous consent as an independent remand ground. This was a recommendation for district-judge review.
“Because service was not improper and not all Defendants consented to removal, the failure to obtain unanimous consent from all served Defendants provides an additional basis for remand.”
Procedural preferences
In TBM N160TM, LLC v. Signature Flight Support LLC, she denied the defendant’s motion without prejudice because counsel had not complied with the scheduling order’s conference requirements.
“the Court will not excuse Defendant’s noncompliance with this Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order and will deny Defendant’s motion without prejudice for Defendant’s failure to comply with its directives.”
After counsel failed to appear and the California Bar listed him as ineligible, she gave the represented entities time to obtain qualified counsel and expressly reserved the sanctions decision.
“This Order does not determine, at this time, whether Peter Beckman remains eligible to practice before this Court or whether any disciplinary, contempt, or monetary sanction is warranted. Those issues are reserved.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED. ... Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED. ... Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED. ... Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17) is GRANTED and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED. ... Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED.”
“The parties' Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 17) is GRANTED, the final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings”
“the Court grants the joint motion to remand (Doc. No. 17) and REVERSES the Commissioner's decision. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings”
“the Court grants the joint motion to remand (Doc. No. 19) and REVERSES the Commissioner's decision. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings”
“The Commissioner of Social Security's decision is REVERSED, judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings”
“Defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's surreply (Doc. No. 73) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's motion for recusal (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED.”
“Finding the petition successive, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed.”
“The first amended petition (Doc. No. 6) be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim, and the alternative, as an unauthorized successive petition.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Barch-Kuchta presides over a substantial Fresno-division consent Social Security docket in which the parties proceed under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and she enters the final merits judgment herself. Her 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 | 1 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 5 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 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 Barch-Kuchta: 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 Barch-Kuchta with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Barch-Kuchta, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Barch-Kuchta's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace