Kirk E. Sherriff
How Judge Sherriff rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sherriff
Kirk Edward Sherriff is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Sherriff received a commission on February 7, 2024.
Judge Sherriff's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Sherriff, 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
Civil motion dates need not be cleared with the court in advance.
“Requesting parties do not have to clear dates with the court.”
Motions
Motion dates are not reserved.
“Motion dates are not reserved.”
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 Sherriff decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
For public-college faculty speech, applies Pickering and NTEU to protect teaching, scholarship, dissident faculty-group activity, and private-citizen speech while distinguishing mandatory training and official committee speech.
“Accordingly, Johnson is likely to succeed on the merits of his as-applied viewpoint discrimination and compelled speech claims challenging the DEIA regulations as to his intended speech, except with respect to the DEIA training requirement or official speech as a member of the EODAC.”
In this case, declined to treat a no contest plea as a bar to excessive force claims without a record showing which acts formed the factual basis of the conviction.
“Defendants have not met their burden to show that plaintiff’s no contest plea necessarily bars his excessive force claims.”
In the Rubio consumer-credit dispute, enforced an express delegation provision where the plaintiff challenged the arbitration agreement generally but did not identify a defect specific to delegation.
“When, as here, an agreement delegates arbitrability, courts may only consider arguments about defects specific to the delegation provision.”
Procedural preferences
Limits injunctions to the relief necessary for the plaintiff before the court and expressly carves out speech or conduct not supported by the evidentiary record.
“This preliminary injunction does not preclude defendants from requiring that Johnson take Bakersfield College’s mandatory DEIA training to be eligible to serve on a faculty screening committee, and it does not apply to official speech as a faculty screening committee member.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“1. The Court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations issued on January 15, 2025 (Doc. 8). 2. Plaintiff's [2] application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.”
“1. The findings and recommendations issued April 3, 2026 (Doc. 260) are ADOPTED in full. 2. Moving Defendants are DENIED costs.”
Sua sponte screening disposition under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. The magistrate found cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive-force and sexual-assault claims and recommended dismissing the remaining claims for failure to state a claim. With no objections filed, Sherriff adopted the recommendation after de novo review. The order states: '1. The findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full.... 3. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted.'
Sua sponte screening disposition and one of Sherriff's earliest signed orders after his February 2024 commission. Following an earlier screening dismissal with leave to amend, the magistrate recommended dismissing the first amended complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff's untimely objections did not address the deficiencies, and Sherriff adopted the recommendation after de novo review and dismissed without further leave to amend. The order states: '2. This action is dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, without further leave to amend; 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.'
“Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's individual PAGA claim (Doc. No. 28) is granted.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is denied without prejudice as having been rendered moot by this order.”
“Plaintiffs' motion to strike, Doc. 91, is DENIED.”
“Based upon the foregoing, Miller's motion to dismiss, Doc. 11, is GRANTED. The complaint, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED without leave to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.”
“1. Defendant Chase's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is granted; 2. The claims asserted against defendant Chase in plaintiffs' first amended complaint are dismissed, with leave to amend; and 3. Plaintiffs may file a second amended complaint within 21 days of the date of this order.”
“1. Fiorentino's first and second causes of action are dismissed without leave to amend; 2. Fiorentino's third cause of action is dismissed with leave to amend; 3. Fiorentino may file an amended complaint within 21 days from the entry of this order”
“Accordingly, petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. 3, is GRANTED. Pending this case, respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that her physical custody is legally justified.”
“1. The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations filed May 14, 2024 (Doc. 64). 2. Defendant's motion to set aside entry of default (Doc. 59) is GRANTED to the extent that defendant Vogel may pursue her claim to the interpleaded funds, including the future annuity payments currently ordered to be deposited with the court when due.”
“1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 6, 2024, Doc. 12, are adopted in full; 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The June 2026 sample is dominated by immigration-detention habeas petitions from California detention facilities, along with consumer-finance, agricultural-contract, pro se prisoner, and civil-rights matters.
- Because Sherriff was commissioned in February 2024, part of the sample consists of prisoner cases inherited after his predecessor's elevation.
- The reported durations come from terminated inherited 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 | 188 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 17 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 120 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 188 | 120 |
| Sep 2025 | 181 | 124 |
| Mar 2025 | 214 | 145 |
| Sep 2024 | 230 | 133 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 115 |
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 Sherriff: 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 Sherriff with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sherriff, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sherriff's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace