Sheila K. Oberto
How Judge Oberto rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Oberto
Sheila K. Oberto began serving as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of California in April 2010 and continues to hear cases on recall in Fresno. Before joining the bench, she practiced law and served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the district.
Judge Oberto's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Oberto, 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 ↗
- Court Procedures ↗
- Trial Conduct and Courtroom Decorum ↗
Key rules
Motions
Judge Oberto lists civil motions for Wednesdays at 9:30 a.m.
“Motion Type: Civil Day: Wednesday* Time: 9:30 a.m.”
Conferences
Criminal status conferences are listed for the first, third, and fifth Mondays, or Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. when Monday is a holiday.
“Criminal Status Conference dates are held on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th Mondays of every month, unless Monday is a holiday, then Tuesday at 1:00 PM.”
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 Oberto decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Lorigo’s benefits appeal, Oberto vacated the administrative law judge’s decision and remanded for further proceedings after finding it unsupported by substantial evidence.
“... decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is, therefore, VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
In Chirag v. Bondi, she recommended barring re-detention unless a neutral arbiter held a custody hearing at which the government proved danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
“Respondents be ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner unless his re-detention is ordered at a custody hearing before a neutral arbiter in which the government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner presents a flight risk or danger to the community.”
In Nichols, she found formal school testing probative when reviewing whether a young-adult claimant had a severe mental impairment at step two.
“significant and probative to the ALJ’s Paragraph B analysis.”
In Mull, Oberto found that the ALJ selectively characterized the claimant’s medical evidence when assessing symptom testimony.
“the reasoning was tainted by ‘cherry-pick[ed]’ medical evidence without considering its”
In Black, Oberto found that the record lacked a medical opinion about the claimant’s functioning after the ALJ rejected the existing opinions.
“the ALJ failed to develop the record.”
Procedural preferences
In Chiprez v. Biten, she recommended dismissing the habeas petition without leave to amend because the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies and had not stated a cognizable claim.
“it is RECOMMENDED that: 1) The petition be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to exhaust state court remedies and failure to state a claim cognizable in a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff Societe d'Equipments Internationaux Nigeria, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss be GRANTED and that Defendant Ara G. Dolarian's Counterclaim be DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend.”
“it is RECOMMENDED that: 1) Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition be GRANTED; 2) The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as moot; and 3) The Clerk be DIRECTED to close the action.”
“it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Defendants' motion to dismiss be GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff's second amended complaint be DISMISSED; and 3. Plaintiff be given an opportunity to file a third amended complaint raising claims for equitable relief.”
“it is RECOMMENDED that: 1) The petition be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to exhaust state court remedies and failure to state a claim cognizable in a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254”
“it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that ... Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed solely on her claim under the Eighth Amendment ... against Officer Ardon; all other claims and defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.”
“the Court finds that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is, therefore, VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(g).”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The above-captioned action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the terms of the Stipulation for Remand”
“As FCH has demonstrated actual and substantial prejudice if discovery is denied, and because Plaintiff has not carried his burden of establishing that discovery is not warranted or cannot be had, the Court GRANTS FCH's Motion to Compel.”
“Based upon the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's ‘Motion to Compel UBS for Production of Exhibit[s] 15 and 16.’”
“VACATED and the case REMANDED to the ALJ for further”
“VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the ALJ for”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- A Fresno-division magistrate docket dominated by a high-volume consent Social Security disability-appeal calendar (claimants seeking review of an agency benefits denial), interleaved with prisoner civil-rights and habeas petitions referred for findings and recommendations, plus occasional contract, ADA-access, consumer-credit, employment, and personal-injury civil matters.
- In consent Social Security cases the parties consent to magistrate jurisdiction and she enters the final merits judgment directly; those terminal merits orders are detailed (typically 13-28 pages) applying the Ninth Circuit five-step and substantial-evidence standard.
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 | 6 |
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 6 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 Oberto: 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 Oberto with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Oberto, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Oberto's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace