Lupe Rodriguez, Jr.
How Judge Rodriguez rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rodriguez
Lupe Rodriguez Jr. was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of California on September 28, 2022, and is based in El Centro. Before joining the bench, he practiced civil litigation and criminal defense. He graduated from California Western School of Law in 1994.
Judge Rodriguez's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Rodriguez, 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
Discovery
Request an informal discovery conference within 45 days after the event giving rise to a discovery dispute.
“The parties must contact the Court to request an informal discovery conference within forty-five (45) days of the event giving rise to the discovery dispute.”
Discovery
Obtain a telephonic discovery conference or leave of court before filing a discovery motion.
“No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its telephonic discovery conference, unless the movant has obtained leave of Court.”
Discovery
Limit a joint discovery motion to 15 pages.
“The Joint Discovery Motion shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages.”
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 Rodriguez decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a consent Social Security appeal, he remanded where the administrative law judge had not fully analyzed a treating physician's opinion when formulating residual functional capacity.
“The Court concludes that remand for further proceedings is warranted. Additional administrative proceedings will allow the ALJ to fully analyze Dr. Benzl's opinion in formulating Plaintiff's RFC.”
Procedural preferences
In a reviewed civil-rights case, Rodriguez recommended dismissal with leave to amend against the city, allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to cure the pleading.
“granting the motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by City and dismissing the Complaint in its entirety with leave to amend”
Cautions
A transfer request in a prisoner case appeared moot after the plaintiff was moved, and the requested injunction concerned events outside the complaint. Rodriguez recommended denying the request on those procedural grounds.
“The Transfer Motion therefore appears to be moot.”
In Cervantes v. Saul, he affirmed after finding that the ALJ identified the claimant’s discounted statements and gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons.
“For the reasons state above, the Court finds that the ALJ properly identified which of Plaintiff’s statements he discounted, and that the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so.”
In a reviewed Social Security appeal, Rodriguez affirmed after finding no error in the residual-functional-capacity assessment or evaluation of symptoms.
“The Court further finds that the ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“granting the motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by City and dismissing the Complaint in its entirety with leave to amend”
“The Transfer Motion therefore appears to be moot. ... For the reasons stated above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Judge Houston issue an order: (1) adopting this Report and Recommendation, and (2) DENYING Plaintiff’s Transfer Motion (ECF No. 61.)”
“the Court REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings to address the errors noted in this Order.”
“the Court accordingly GRANTS the Joint Motion (ECF No. 16), and awards Plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of five thousand and one hundred dollars ($5,100.00), as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of four hundred and two dollars ($402.00)”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees [ECF No. 24]. The Court awards Plaintiff’s counsel, the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC, attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,462.00.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED consistent with this Report and Recommendation.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED consistent with this Report and Recommendation.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner’s decision be REVERSED and this matter be REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Report and Recommendation.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Judge issue an order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing that Judgment be entered DENYING the Amended Petition.”
“For the reasons state above, the Court finds that the ALJ properly identified which of Plaintiff’s statements he discounted, and that the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so. The Court therefore ORDERS that judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and dismissing this case.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 13] and DENIES Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 14]. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings to address the errors noted in this Order.”
“For the reasons state above, the Court finds that the ALJ properly identified which of Plaintiff’s statements he discounted, and that the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so. The Court therefore ORDERS that judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and dismissing this case.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 491 days (N = 5).
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 |
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 Rodriguez: 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 Rodriguez with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rodriguez, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rodriguez's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace