Troy L. Nunley
How Judge Nunley rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Nunley
Troy Lynne Nunley is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Nunley received a commission on March 26, 2013.
Judge Nunley's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Nunley, 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
Filing
A sentencing memorandum is due by 5 p.m. on the Thursday before sentencing.
“said memorandum shall be filed on or before 5:00 PM on the Thursday prior to the hearing date.”
Motions
Civil motion and opposition memoranda are limited to 20 pages; replies are limited to 10.
“Memoranda of Points and Authorities in support of or in opposition to motions shall not exceed twenty (20) pages. Replies shall not exceed ten (10) pages.”
Motions
A civil motion to raise page limits must be made in writing at least 14 days before filing.
“All requests for page limit increases must be made in writing at least fourteen (14) days prior to the filing of the motion.”
Conferences
A request to appear by phone must be filed with a proposed order at least seven court days before the hearing.
“Any party seeking to appear telephonically must file, for the Court's consideration, not later than seven (7) court days prior to the hearing date, a Request to Appear Telephonically with a Proposed Order.”
Conferences
A criminal continuance requires advance court approval of a written request.
“FOR ANY CONTINUANCE TO BE EFFECTED, THE COURT MUST APPROVE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING.”
Sealing
A document cannot be sealed without prior court approval.
“No document will be sealed, without the prior approval of the Court.”
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 Nunley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a recent immigration-detention habeas ruling, Nunley required a prompt hearing before a neutral fact-finder, placed the burden on the government by clear and convincing evidence, and required consideration of release alternatives and the petitioner's finances.
“Respondents bear the burden to justify Petitioner’s detention by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. The factfinder must consider alternative conditions of release and Petitioner’s financial circumstances in setting bond.”
Procedural preferences
When reviewing objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation, Nunley's recent orders expressly apply de novo review and ask whether the recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis before adopting it.
“This Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.”
In Comer v. County of Sutter, Nunley declined to bifurcate individual-officer and municipal-liability claims because evidence of the alleged constitutional violation overlapped meaningfully across both sets of claims.
“This is exactly the type of evidence that meaningfully overlaps between individual officer liability and Monell liability.”
In a criminal case, Nunley treated a request to dismiss the indictment over a lapse in appointed-counsel funding as moot once funding resumed and counsel could continue representing the defendant; he did not decide whether the lapse had violated the Constitution.
“Funding has now been restored, and Defendant’s counsel has been”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 111) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 120) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 121) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 109) is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) is granted;”
“Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is denied; ... The matter is remanded for further proceedings as set forth in the findings and recommendations”
“Although initially opposed, Defendant FedEx Corporation 'no longer opposes' the motion. (ECF No. 16.) Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.”
“the Court GRANTS the County's motion. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff's Monell claim against the County (Claim Three) is DISMISSED.”
“The motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED ... and this case is DISMISSED in its entirety.”
“the motion for remand and amended motion for remand (ECF Nos. 7, 10) are DENIED”
“the Court amends its Order granting Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to be with prejudice. All claims in this action are dismissed.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 5) and STAYS the case pending completion of arbitration.”
“Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted in part, and denied in part, as follows ...”
“Plaintiff's September 5, 2023 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED”
“Petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 14) is DENIED”
“Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 11) is DENIED as MOOT”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 69) is hereby GRANTED ... [some claims] are DISMISSED with leave to amend ... [other nationwide-class claims] are DISMISSED without leave to amend”
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, employment, and other pro se civil matters. Older terminated cases include prisoner civil-rights actions and Social Security appeals referred to magistrate judges. The reported duration comes from a terminated prisoner civil-rights case reviewed in depth.
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 | 76 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 79 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 76 | 79 |
| Sep 2025 | 19 | 74 |
| Mar 2025 | 25 | 68 |
| Sep 2024 | 38 | 70 |
| Mar 2024 | 16 | 69 |
| Sep 2023 | 14 | 67 |
| Mar 2023 | 50 | 96 |
| Sep 2022 | 36 | 97 |
| Mar 2022 | 58 | 122 |
| Sep 2021 | 95 | 123 |
| Mar 2021 | 133 | 117 |
| Sep 2020 | 97 | 95 |
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 Nunley: 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 Nunley with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Nunley, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Nunley's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace