Jeremy D. Peterson
How Judge Peterson rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Peterson
Jeremy D. Peterson is a United States Magistrate Judge in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. Appointed in 2018, he previously worked as a federal prosecutor and clerked for Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert of the Third Circuit.
Judge Peterson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Peterson, 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
Judge Peterson lists civil motions for Thursdays at 10:00 a.m.
“Motion Type: Civil Day: Thursdays* Time: 10:00 a.m.”
Motions
Judge Peterson lists criminal motions for Mondays at 10:00 a.m.
“Motion Type: Criminal Day: Mondays Time: 10:00 a.m.”
Motions
Contact the courtroom deputy for available motion hearing dates.
“*Contact courtroom deputy for available dates.”
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 Peterson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Leighty v. O’Malley, he granted the claimant’s summary-judgment motion and remanded the benefits appeal after finding the ALJ’s treatment of symptom testimony insufficient.
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 10, is granted.”
Procedural preferences
In Stanford v. Pena, he recommended denying summary judgment for one officer while granting it for two others based on their different knowledge of the alleged threat.
“it is hereby RECOMMENDED that defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 51, be denied for McQuade and granted for Lewis and Pena.”
Cautions
In Young v. Pfeiffer, he recommended granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss the habeas petition.
“We recommend that the court grant respondent's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 24.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We recommend that the court grant respondent's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 24.”
“it is hereby RECOMMENDED that defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 51, be denied for McQuade and granted for Lewis and Pena.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 38, be GRANTED and summary judgment be entered in his favor.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 42, be DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint, ECF No. 45, be DENIED.”
“it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 48, be denied.”
“the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 19, is granted;”
“claimant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 15, is denied;”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 17, is granted.”
“The Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 19, is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 10, is granted.”
“The Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 11, is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED.”
“The Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 15, is DENIED.”
During statutory screening of a pro se prisoner's civil-rights complaint, he construed the pleading liberally, allowed cognizable due-process claims to proceed against the personally involved defendants, and recommended dismissing the supervisory defendant and other claims without prejudice and with leave to amend. The recommendation stated: "Plaintiff's remaining claims and defendants should be dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the complaint."
“The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 38 & 40, are GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to expedite, ECF Nos. 38 & 41, are DENIED as moot.”
“Defendants Fifth Third Bank, N.A. and Fifth Third Bancorp motion to dismiss, ECF No. 43, is DENIED without prejudice.”
“plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, ECF Nos. 34, 36, & 45, be DENIED.”
He directed the defendant to re-serve a dismissal motion after the prisoner plaintiff twice reported that she had not received it, and set new opposition and reply dates. The order did not decide the dismissal motion.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Peterson is the consent (636(c)) assigned magistrate judge on a large Social Security disability docket; he enters the final consent judgment. His broader referral docket also 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 | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 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 Peterson: 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 Peterson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Peterson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Peterson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace