Bernard G. Skomal
How Judge Skomal rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Skomal no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Skomal
Bernard G. Skomal served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of California from 2010 until his retirement in 2024. He served as presiding magistrate judge from 2022 to 2024 and earned degrees from the College of the Holy Cross and Suffolk University Law School.
How Judge Skomal decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Varela-Garcia v. Colvin, he recommended remand so the ALJ could clarify the weight given to the claimant's treating physicians; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“the Report and Recommendation ... is adopted in its entirety; (2) the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff ... is granted in part and denied in part; ... this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for the Administrative Law Judge to further clarify his decision to afford little weight to the opinions of Plaintiff's treating physicians”
Procedural preferences
In Tillis v. Hedgepeth, he recommended dismissal of the habeas petition without prejudice; the district judge adopted that recommendation.
“the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. ... The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed without prejudice. ... the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.15) is adopted in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Respondent (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED.”
In Garcia v. Nuno, he recommended dismissal of the prisoner complaint except for two Eighth Amendment claims; the district judge adopted the recommendation in part.
“Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’), recommending that this Court issue an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on all claims except the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Officer Nuno and the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Kornbluth. ... the Court SUSTAINS Defendants' objection ... APPROVES and ADOPTS IN PART the R&R ... and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss”
Cautions
In Nilon v. Natural-Immunogenics, he recommended denying the motion for contempt and sanctions against the former class counsel.
“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e), the Court has reviewed the parties' briefs, declarations and exhibits and RECOMMENDS Defendant's Motion for Contempt and Sanctions be DENIED. ... the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Natural-Immunogenics' Motion for Contempt and Imposition of Sanctions against Newport Trial Group attorneys ... be DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Magistrate Judge recommended that ‘Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff S.T., Nguyen, and Tran's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be GRANTED without leave to amend; Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be DENIED AS MOOT; and Plaintiff Tran's request to petition for 406(b) attorney's fees be DENIED as premature.’ ... the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety”
“the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. ... The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed without prejudice. ... the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.15) is adopted in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Respondent (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED.”
“Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation recommending this Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment ... Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“recommending this Court grant in part and deny in part ... Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. ... Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The matter is remanded to the Social Security Administration”
“Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’), recommending that this Court issue an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on all claims except the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Officer Nuno and the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Kornbluth. ... the Court SUSTAINS Defendants' objection ... APPROVES and ADOPTS IN PART the R&R ... and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss”
“the Report and Recommendation ... is adopted in its entirety; (2) the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff ... is granted in part and denied in part; ... this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for the Administrative Law Judge to further clarify his decision to afford little weight to the opinions of Plaintiff's treating physicians”
“(3) the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant ... is granted in part and denied in part; and (4) this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration”
“the Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’) of Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal, filed on July 5, 2022, recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Minor's Compromise ... and approve the proposed settlement. ... the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Judge Skomal's R&R; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to confirm minor's compromise”
“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e), the Court has reviewed the parties' briefs, declarations and exhibits and RECOMMENDS Defendant's Motion for Contempt and Sanctions be DENIED. ... the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Natural-Immunogenics' Motion for Contempt and Imposition of Sanctions against Newport Trial Group attorneys ... be DENIED.”
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 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 1 |
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 Skomal 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.