Benjamin J. Cheeks
How Judge Cheeks rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cheeks
Benjamin Jerome Cheeks is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Cheeks received a commission on January 9, 2025.
Judge Cheeks's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Cheeks, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
Set a noticed motion hearing 35 days after filing the motion.
“Parties filing a noticed motion must set the hearing date to be thirty-five (35) days from the motion’s filing date.”
Motions
Attach a separate statement of undisputed material facts to every summary judgment motion.
“All motions for summary judgment must be accompanied by a separate statement of undisputed material facts.”
Conferences
Meet and confer before requesting a continuance or other procedural change.
“Parties requesting a continuance of any conference, scheduled motion, hearing date, deadline, briefing schedule, or any other procedural change must meet and confer prior to contacting 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 8, 2026).
- General Order 514-E: Policy on Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files ↗
- General Order 596: Pro Bono Plan ↗
- Chief Judge Order 144: Standard Procedures for Immigration Habeas Petitions ↗
- Chief Judge Order 134-A: Appointment of Counsel for Certain Immigration Detainees Seeking Habeas Relief ↗
How Judge Cheeks decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Fardijouybari v. Mullin, he held that the petitioner was entitled to release because removal to his country of citizenship was not reasonably foreseeable.
“Petitioner cannot be removed to his country of citizenship in the reasonably foreseeable future, and he would be entitled to seek protection from removal to a third country. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to release under Zadvydas.”
Cautions
In an employment dispute, the court declined to compel arbitration after finding both procedural and substantive unconscionability throughout the provision; severing isolated terms would not cure it.
“The Arbitration Provision is procedurally and substantively unconscionable.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to pay the full $405 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)”
“Defendants, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing Plaintiff from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s IFP Motion [ECF No. 3.] Plaintiff shall have until March 18, 2025, to pay the entire filing fee or file a renewed application to proceed IFP.”
“Plaintiff has filed a Renewed Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [ECF No. 7.] For the reasons stated below, his motion is GRANTED. ... Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion [ECF No. 7.]”
“Here, Plaintiff represents that he has equipment and software sufficient to meet the required technical specifications, is familiar with the District’s policies and procedures, and will comply with all relevant privacy policies. (Mot.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. [ECF No. 2.]”
“Based on Plaintiff’s income, expenses, and bank account, it appears that he does not have funds to pay the filing fee and still ‘afford the necessities of life.’ Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion [ECF No. 3.]”
“Accordingly, the Court stays the current action and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default. Defendant is directed to file a status report on the progress of his bankruptcy petition no later than July 25, 2025.”
“Consequently, because Bissell has put forth undisputed evidence that the Vacuum’s warranty began on the date of delivery and not purchase, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated he suffered an injury in fact and therefore GRANTS Bissell’s motion to dismiss.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant has met its burden of establishing the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, Defendant has established federal jurisdiction under CAFA, and Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is DENIED.”
“Good cause appearing, the Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as follows: 1. The September 15, 2025 Early Neutral Evaluation Conference is hereby CONTINUED to October 6, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.”
“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s temporary restraining order is GRANTED; 2. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is hereby ORDERED to immediately release the Petitioner from the Otay Mesa Detention Center;”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay; and (2) GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.”
“As noted above, the statute of limitations period has run on Plaintiff’s FTCA claims, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims because the government is immune from suit over FTCA cases concerning contact interference. Therefore, the outcome of the state court case will not have an effect on the present action, and the motion for stay is denied as moot.”
“Accordingly, the motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED, and the petition that seeks the same relief is DISMISSED.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's challenge to the decision to remove him before the BIA adjudicates his motion to reopen. Accordingly, the motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED, and the petition that seeks the same relief is DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- On elevation Cheeks inherited an established San Diego civil docket from several predecessor judges, including employment and civil-rights matters, ERISA cases, commercial contract and trade-secret disputes, prisoner litigation, Federal Tort Claims Act cases, and immigration mandamus and habeas petitions.
- His newly filed 2026 assignments are dominated by the court's alien-detainee habeas rotation.
- Because every sampled case was filed before his January 2025 commission, the sample reflects inherited work rather than cases he managed from filing.
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 | 12 |
| 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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 12 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 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 Southern District of California, not for Judge Cheeks: 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 | 2,204 | 5.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 642 | 3.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,066 | 5.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 484 | 10.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 38.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,204 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,146 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,133 | 6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,974 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,381 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,885 | 6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,265 | 6.2 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 Cheeks with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cheeks, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cheeks's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace