Barbara L. Major
How Judge Major rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Major no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Major
Barbara L. Major served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of California from 2004 until her retirement in 2026. She earned degrees from Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley School of Law and previously served as an assistant United States attorney.
How Judge Major decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Klaas v. Kijakazi, she recommended denying the claimant’s summary-judgment motion and granting the Commissioner’s.
“recommending the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and enter judgment in favor of Defendant.”
In Turely v. Laqunas, she recommended summary judgment for the defendant on the prisoner’s claim; the district judge adopted her recommendation.
“Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major's Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’), which recommends granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ... the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major's R&R and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
Cautions
In an IRS summons dispute, Major recommended denying the taxpayer’s petition to quash because the taxpayer lacked statutory notice and thus a jurisdictional route to challenge the summons.
“Petitioner has failed to meet her burden to show this Court has subject matter jurisdiction”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major's Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’), which recommends granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ... the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major's R&R and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major's Report and Recommendation, (‘R&R,’ ECF No. 20), recommending the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment ... the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS Judge Major's R&R, DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment.”
“recommending the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and enter judgment in favor of Defendant.”
“For the reasons set forth above, this Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED.”
“the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major's well reasoned R&R in its entirety GRANTING Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC ... The R&R finds that Plaintiff's ex post facto claim ... should be dismissed without prejudice. The R&R recommends that Plaintiff's due process claim should be dismissed without leave to amend”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Major's R&R and GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18). However, while Judge Major recommends that the Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Arguilez, (see R&R 15), and his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Nevarez, (id. at 18), the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to re-plead these claims with additional factual allegations.”
“Accordingly, the Court (1) OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 87), (2) ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, and (3) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63). Specifically, the Court (1) DENIES Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiff's failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Garcia, (2) GRANTS Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Martinez to the extent it is based upon conduct underlying the RVR and DENIES the Motion as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendant Martinez to the extent it is based upon conduct unrelated to the RVR, and (3) GRANTS Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Casian.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 41], GRANTS the Motion [Doc. 36], and AWARDS a total of $2,565.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney, James McDanel of the Law Offices of James McDanel, jointly and severally. Based on the foregoing, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 109) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY; (2) the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by all Defendants (Doc. # 65) is GRANTED; (3) the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Lemus (Doc. # 82) is DENIED; and (4) the Rule 56(f) motion filed by Plaintiff (Doc. # 103; Doc. # 112) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.8) is adopted in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondent (ECF No. 6) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation; (2) granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; and (3) dismissing this action in its entirety without prejudice.”
“For the reasons outlined above, IT HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying the Petition with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court DENIES Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel and RECOMMENDS that the District Judge issue an order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying the Petition.”
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 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.
A historical record
Judge Major no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.