Daniel E. Butcher
How Judge Butcher rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Butcher
Daniel E. Butcher was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of California on May 26, 2020. He has participated in judicial education events with the San Diego legal community.
Judge Butcher's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Butcher, 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.
- Civil Chambers Rules ↗
- Criminal Chambers Rules ↗
- Criminal Chambers Rules - Attachment A ↗
- Electronically Stored Information Checklist ↗
Key rules
Discovery
File a joint discovery plan at least seven days before the ENE and case management conference.
“At least seven (7) days prior to the scheduled ENE/CMC, the parties must file a Joint Discovery Plan on CM/ECF.”
Conferences
Lodge each confidential ENE statement by email at least seven calendar days before the ENE.
“No later than seven (7) calendar days before the ENE, each party must lodge a ‘Confidential ENE Statement’ by email to efile_butcher@casd.”
Conferences
Lodge a confidential settlement statement at least seven days before a settlement conference.
“Each party must lodge a Confidential Settlement Statement at least seven (7) days before the settlement conference by email to efile_butcher@casd.”
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 Butcher decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On a partial Rule 12(b)(6) motion he recommends granting in part, dismissing state-law tort claims without leave where the plaintiff failed to comply with the California Government Claims Act and the limitations period lapsed, while denying as moot other portions.
“The R&R advises the Court to grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims ... and deny as moot Defendant's motion to dismiss the official capacity claims. ... the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections ... ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety ... and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' partial motion to dismiss”
In one subpoena dispute, Judge Butcher required counsel to meet and confer by video before seeking court intervention and denied the existing motion without prejudice so a compliant joint discovery statement could replace it.
“Under no circumstances may counsel satisfy the ‘meet and confer’ obligation by written correspondence alone.”
In approving one minor's compromise, Judge Butcher independently reviewed the net recovery, costs, annuity, and fee request, and accepted a contingency fee above the usual benchmark after considering the complexity and work performed.
“The Court finds counsel expended significant time and resources to obtain a favorable result for Plaintiff E.C.”
A change of counsel does not by itself justify reopening discovery; in Cuebiq, he required the party to show diligence during the existing discovery period and held new counsel to prior representations that substitution would not delay the schedule.
“Substitution of counsel, however, does not establish good cause to extend existing deadlines.”
Cautions
Butcher recommends dismissing a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition as time-barred under AEDPA where the limitations period expired and there is no statutory or equitable tolling and no new evidence to invoke the Schlup actual-innocence gateway.
“Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends GRANTING Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 11.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The R&R advises the Court to grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims ... and deny as moot Defendant's motion to dismiss the official capacity claims. ... the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections ... ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety ... and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' partial motion to dismiss”
“Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher's Report and Recommendation (‘R&R,’ ECF No. 12) advising the Court to deny the Petition ... the Court ... ADOPTS the R&R's conclusions ... DENIES the Petition ... DENIES a Certificate of Appealability.”
“Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends GRANTING Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 11.”
“The Court finds trial counsel’s failure to consult a forensic pathologist was deficient and prejudicial and, therefore, recommends granting Atta’s Motion for a New Trial on this ground. The Court otherwise finds trial counsel’s performance met Strickland’s Sixth Amendment standards.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, REVERSES the Commissioner's decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDS for the calculation and award of benefits.”
Order granting IFP and screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B); no party motion ruled on.
“The Court finds no clear error in the R&R. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Dkt. No. 1.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court APPROVES the settlement agreement and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to confirm Plaintiff E.C.’s minor’s compromise. Dkt. No. 74.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order as follows: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) DENYING Defendant Obler’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 33.”
“The undersigned, therefore, recommends denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at Docket No. 3 as moot.”
“the undersigned recommends GRANTING the County’s Motion (Dkt. No. 8) with leave for Plaintiff to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the County and Sheriff Martinez.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Fish Attorneys’ Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 127.”
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.
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 Butcher: 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 Butcher with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Butcher, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Butcher's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace