Kirk E. Sherriff
How Judge Sherriff rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
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.”
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.
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