Sean C. Riordan
How Judge Riordan rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Riordan
Sean C. Riordan is a United States Magistrate Judge in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. He took office in August 2024 after working for American Civil Liberties Union affiliates and as an assistant federal public defender.
Judge Riordan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Riordan, 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
Conferences
Criminal and misdemeanor motion hearings are held in person on Tuesdays at 10 a.m., except the second Tuesday of the month.
“Criminal/Misdemeanor Motion Hearings are held in-person on Tuesday at 10:00 AM (except for the 2nd Tuesday of the month) in Courtroom 27, 8th floor.”
Conferences
Civil motion hearings are held in person on Thursdays at 10 a.m., subject to special settings by the judge.
“Civil Motion Hearings are held in-person on Thursday at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 27, 8th floor. The judge may special set certain motions on different days and/or times to provide all parties time for argument.”
Conferences
Counsel need not reserve civil motion dates with the courtroom deputy.
“*Motion dates need not be reserved with the Courtroom Deputy.”
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 Riordan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Tigranyan's immigration-detention habeas case, Riordan applied the Mathews due-process factors and recommended an individualized bond hearing within fourteen days, with the government required to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. The government's sur-reply did not specifically address the petitioner's Mathews arguments.
“Respondent be ordered to provide petitioner with a bond hearing before an IJ within fourteen days”
In Abyad's post-removal detention challenge, Riordan applied the Mathews factors and recommended denying the habeas petition without prejudice. He found that the available regulatory and judicial review procedures reduced the risk of erroneous detention despite the petitioner's liberty interest and the limited burden of a hearing.
“the second Mathews factor weighs heavily against Petitioner and tilts the analysis toward Respondents”
In Jenner, attendance at necessary medical appointments did not adequately undermine a doctor’s opinion about anxiety and coping limitations. He recommended further administrative proceedings to correct the symptom and opinion analysis, rather than an immediate benefits award.
“Discrediting a doctor’s opinion based on a patient’s ability to attend medical appointments is unconvincing. A patient can have difficulty coping with brief social interactions and experience anxiety, and still manage to attend necessary medical appointments.”
Procedural preferences
In Boudousquie's action against the Department of the Army, Riordan recommended granting the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and closing the case.
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) be GRANTED and this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that this case be closed.”
In Creel, affirmative defenses needed a factual basis sufficient to give fair notice; bare doctrine labels were insufficient. Seven defenses were stricken, with amendment permitted for four. He also warned that future filings exceeding the twenty-page standing-order limit could lead to sanctions.
“Fair notice ‘requires the defendant state the nature and grounds for the affirmative defense,’ and although it is a ‘low bar,’ it does require ‘some factual basis’ for the affirmative defense.”
Cautions
In Jacques's prisoner civil-rights case, he found that the plaintiff submitted a false in forma pauperis application in bad faith and recommended dismissal with prejudice as a sanction.
“court finds that you submitted a false IFP application in bad faith in this case.”
In Harris, he recommended dismissal with prejudice for knowingly false witness evidence after considering lesser sanctions. Additional discovery would prolong a ten-year case and monetary sanctions against an indigent prisoner would be futile; the absence of an explicit dismissal warning was not dispositive.
“Therefore, the available alternatives are either unreasonable at this late stage of the case or not feasible.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) be GRANTED and this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that this case be closed.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 22) be granted. ... Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(A).”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) be GRANTED; ... Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice, given the futility of amendment.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 13) be GRANTED. ... the undersigned also recommends that the injunction here exclude the following language proposed by Plaintiffs: 'otherwise competing unfairly with Nutramax in any manner' and 'those with actual notice of this Order...'”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) is DENIED ... The Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED; ... This Commissioner's final decision in this matter is AFFIRMED”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Crivello's motion to dismiss plaintiff's official capacity retaliation claim (ECF No. 22) be GRANTED.”
“Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be granted. ... Petitioner be ordered to be released immediately from the respondent's custody with the same conditions that he was subject to prior to his re-detention on July 20, 2025.”
“Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be granted based on the lack of any substantive answer filed by respondent and the weight of relevant authority; [and] Respondent be ordered to provide petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before a neutral decision-maker, at which the government bears the burden of justifying continued detention by clear and convincing evidence”
“Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be granted. ... Respondent be ordered to provide petitioner with a bond hearing before an IJ within fourteen days ... where the IJ must order petitioner released unless the IJ finds that he is a risk of flight or danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence.”
“Petitioner Lovepreet Singh's (A# 208-203-248) application for a writ of habeas corpus be GRANTED on Count Two (procedural due process). ... Petitioner be released immediately from custody”
“Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be granted on the Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim only.”
“Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) be denied.”
“Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be granted on Count One and Count Two only.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Riordan presides over a large Sacramento consent Social Security docket reassigned from his retiring predecessor, in which the parties proceed under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and he enters the final merits judgment himself. His broader referral docket carries prisoner and pro se civil-rights matters and a notable volume of immigration habeas petitions.
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 | 8 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 3 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 8 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 19 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
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 Riordan: 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 Riordan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Riordan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Riordan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace