Dana M. Sabraw
How Judge Sabraw rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sabraw
Dana Makoto Sabraw is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Sabraw received a commission on September 26, 2003.
Judge Sabraw's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Sabraw, 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
Filing
Submit courtesy copies of pleadings to chambers as soon as practicable after filing.
“Courtesy copies of pleadings, marked as such, shall be submitted to chambers, as soon as practicable after filing.”
Motions
File a motion on the same day the law clerk reserves its hearing date.
“A hearing date will not be reserved unless the motion is filed on the date on which the Law Clerk is contacted to schedule the hearing date.”
Discovery
Lead counsel must meet in person to try to resolve a discovery dispute.
“In the event of a discovery dispute, lead counsel shall meet in person in an effort to resolve the dispute.”
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 Sabraw decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an immigration detention petition, the court ordered a bond hearing after finding that an interior resident was subject to discretionary detention rather than the mandatory detention provision the government invoked.
“noncitizens residing in the interior do not fall under § 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory detention”
In a separate re-detention case, the court ordered immediate release because the petitioner had been taken back into custody without changed circumstances or a hearing; a later bond hearing would not remedy that violation.
“a bond hearing will not cure this constitutional violation.”
In an insurance coverage dispute, the insurer’s own investigation revealed facts suggesting a potential covered claim; the court held that information triggered a duty to defend the insured.
“USLIC was aware of facts that raised the potential of coverage under its policy, thus triggering its duty to defend.”
At the pleading stage of a consumer pricing suit, the court treated an allegedly misleading former-price comparison as an actionable representation. Other parts of the dismissal request succeeded.
“the alleged former price comparison is an actionable representation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“MPC's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Accordingly, the September 8, 2011 order is hereby amended”
“American's motion for partial summary judgment on MPC's rescission defense is DENIED.”
Pro se non-prisoner IFP complaint. IFP GRANTED; on mandatory 28 U.S.C. Sec.1915(e)(2) sua sponte screening, complaint DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without leave as frivolous/duplicative (Rooker-Feldman; same claims already litigated and rejected in N.D. Cal., 9th/Fed. Cir., and SCOTUS). As a screening dismissal with no party dispositive motion, it is excluded from the motion-grant tallies. Dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.
“The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Sec. 1983 claims for violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments against all Defendants with leave to amend. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Sec. 1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment without leave to amend. ... The Court DENIES Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7).”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.”
“the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under the APA and the Asylum Statute, and denies Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' due process claim.”
“the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for classwide preliminary injunction ... Defendants must reunify all Class Members with their minor children who are under the age of five (5) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order; and ... age five (5) and over within thirty (30) days.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with leave to amend.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ... his claims are DISMISSED.”
“the Court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claims for race discrimination, the creation of a racially hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, as well as each claim arising under the Rehabilitation Act. The Court also dismisses Plaintiff's causes of action for discrimination and the creation of a hostile work environment based on sex.”
“the Court CONFIRMS its GRANT in part and denial in part of Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants shall (1) provide a certified MSL interpreter at all Plaintiff's future immigration hearings and proceedings; (2) redo Plaintiff's medical and mental evaluations with the assistance of certified MSL interpretation; (3) reschedule Plaintiff's competency hearing ... pending MSL interpretation services and renewed medical and mental evaluations”
“The Court denies Rose-Traugh's motion for summary judgment.”
“the Court hereby approves and adopts the report in its entirety, and grants the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Kahl's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' TAC.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 59 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 75 days (N = 6).
The sample covers ten cases filed in December 2024 and includes disability-access claims, prisoner civil-rights litigation, Federal Tort Claims Act cases, contract and diversity disputes, a tax-summons matter, and removed personal-injury litigation. Several civil cases were referred to magistrate judges for pretrial proceedings.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 26 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 27 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 27 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 73 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 73 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 74 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 73 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 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.
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 Sabraw: 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 Sabraw with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sabraw, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sabraw's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace