Janis L. Sammartino
How Judge Sammartino rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sammartino
Janis Lynn Sammartino is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Sammartino received a commission on September 21, 2007.
Judge Sammartino's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Sammartino's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Sammartino decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Shahabzada v. Astrue, she adopted the recommendation to reverse and remand the disability decision for vocational-expert testimony because the record did not support the agency’s finding about available work.
“This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for additional proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to allow for testimony by a vocational expert.”
Procedural preferences
In United States Aviation Underwriters v. Aerospike Iron, Sammartino denied the plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion, granted the defendants’ partial summary-judgment motion in part, and granted each side’s expert challenge in part.
“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 81)”
In Idris v. Casey, she found that the detainee had shown no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, shifted the burden to the government, and ordered his release after it produced no evidence of removal efforts.
“Because Petitioner has shown good reason to believe he will not be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, the burden now shifts to Respondents to rebut Petitioner’s showing.”
Cautions
In Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Sammartino granted dismissal with prejudice of the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint, ending the case after multiple pleading opportunities.
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 70). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 66.) This Order ends the litigation in this matter.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 70). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 66.) This Order ends the litigation in this matter.”
“the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (ECF No. 22).”
“the Court DENIES Defendants' County of San Diego, Deputy Patrick Newlander, and Deputy Christopher Olsen's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 119).”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss the first claim for declaratory judgment. Plaintiff's first claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to strike the allegation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).”
“Defendant's motion to stay pending the resolution of the pending state court action is GRANTED.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14). The Complaint's intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligence per se, false advertising, and unfair competition claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent they seek damages... The Complaint's remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of standing to pursue injunctive and declaratory relief.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 83)”
“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 81)”
“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion (ECF No. 82)”
“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Daubert Motion (ECF No. 80).”
“Finding that plaintiffs are not entitled to declaratory relief and reimbursement, the Court DENIES plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.”
“Further finding that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Count IV of plaintiffs' complaint, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion for partial summary judgment.”
“The Court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion to strike the Chihak Declaration and DENIES the motion to strike the Bedoe and Sanders declarations.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for additional proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to allow for testimony by a vocational expert.”
“Defendant's objections are OVERRULED... Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Defendant Dacar's liability for violating the Eighth Amendment by using excessive force. The remainder of Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on exhaustion grounds is DENIED; (2) Defendants Motion to Dismiss the injunctive claims for relief is GRANTED and Plaintiff's injunctive claims for relief are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and (3) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the official capacity claims against Defendants is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in the R&R on or before April 24, 2015.”
“ESA's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 54) is GRANTED IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to Plaintiff's direct and indirect perpetrator theories and DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff's direct and indirect beneficiary theories.”
“In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint's Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The caseload sample covers two filing periods. Sammartino's 2026 docket is dominated by alien-detainee habeas petitions, many referred to magistrate judges. The 2020-2022 sample is weighted toward immigration and drug prosecutions, with civil matters including a False Claims Act case, diversity insurance litigation, and prisoner civil-rights claims.
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 78 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 78 |
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 Sammartino: 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 Sammartino with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sammartino, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sammartino's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace