Lupe Rodriguez, Jr.

How Judge Rodriguez rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Position
magistrate
Commissioned
2022-09-28
Education
California Western School of Law (J.D., 1994)
Signed orders read
17

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

Recommends granting a motion to dismiss with leave to amend, giving the plaintiff a chance to cure rather than dismissing outright; recommendation adopted in full.

“Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. prepared a Report and Recommendation ('Report') recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted with leave to amend ... ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Rodriguez's Report and Recommendation in its entirety; 2. GRANTS the City of El Centro's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint ... GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint against the City of El Centro only”

Cautions

Recommends denying a prisoner-plaintiff's motion for transfer and request for an injunction.

“On May 5, 2023, Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. submitted the R&R to this Court recommending that Plaintiff's motion be denied. (ECF No. 65). ... The Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No. 65); Plaintiff's motion for transfer (ECF No. 61) is DENIED; Plaintiff's request for injunction (ECF No. 68) is DENIED.”

In consent Social Security appeals, he has affirmed agency decisions where the administrative law judge identified the testimony being discounted and supplied 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.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Alonso v. El Centro Police Department
3:23-cv-00006-CAB-LR · 2023-08-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. prepared a Report and Recommendation ('Report') recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted with leave to amend ... ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Rodriguez's Report and Recommendation in its entirety; 2. GRANTS the City of El Centro's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint ... GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint against the City of El Centro only”

Cavazos v. Garilaso
3:21-cv-01156-JAH-LR · 2023-05-05
Motion for transfer (plaintiff) Denied

“On May 5, 2023, Magistrate Judge Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. submitted the R&R to this Court recommending that Plaintiff's motion be denied. (ECF No. 65). ... The Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No. 65); Plaintiff's motion for transfer (ECF No. 61) is DENIED; Plaintiff's request for injunction (ECF No. 68) is DENIED.”

Linda Lee E. v. O'Malley
3:23-cv-00770 · 2024-09-10
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“the Court REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings to address the errors noted in this Order.”

Linda Lee E. v. Colvin
3:23-cv-00770 · 2025-01-17
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“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)”

Lakonnie M. v. Dudek
3:22-cv-00985 · 2025-05-01
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“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.”

Samantha M. v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:23-cv-02182 · 2025-02-18
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED consistent with this Report and Recommendation.”

Matthew C. v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:24-cv-00322 · 2025-02-21
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED consistent with this Report and Recommendation.”

Jennifer A. v. O'Malley
3:23-cv-00326 · 2024-02-02
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“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.”

Frausto v. Gonzales
3:19-cv-00544 · 2026-02-02
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“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.”

Cervantes v. Saul
3:21-cv-01161-LR · 2023-09-14
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“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.”

Desrosiers v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:21-cv-01403-LR · 2023-08-30
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“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.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied
Good v. Kijakazi
3:21-cv-02135-LR · 2023-03-20
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“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).

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