Peter C. Lewis
Judge Lewis no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Lewis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security appeals, an administrative law judge's failure to address lay-witness evidence (a family member's third-party functional report) is treated as significant legal error warranting remand, even where the magistrate finds other claimed errors (such as a Step 2 severity finding) harmless. A claimant who can point to ignored lay testimony has a concrete remand argument here.
“the ALJ's failure to address Ms. Zimmerman's report is significant legal error warranting remand for reconsideration of that evidence”
Procedural preferences
Habeas petitions that have not been fully exhausted in the state courts are recommended for dismissal under the total-exhaustion rule -- presenting claims to the state's highest court that were never raised in the lower state courts does not exhaust them. Dismissal in that posture is without prejudice to refiling once the claims are exhausted.
“Since Petitioner sought direct review from the California Supreme Court on claims not presented to the lower state courts, Petitioner's claims are unexhausted for purposes of federal review.”
On habeas discovery, the moving party must make a specific, fact-based showing of good cause under Rule 6, and to expand the record under Rule 7 must show diligence in attempting to develop the evidence in state court; generalized requests are denied, and those denials are non-dispositive orders reviewed only for clear error.
“denied Petitioner's motion for discovery because he failed to state a specific allegation that, if fully developed, would entitle him to relief under Rule 6”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“On June 25, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis issued a Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’), recommending that this Court: (1) approve and adopt the R&R; and (2) direct that judgment be entered granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. ... the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R.”
“On July 24, 2013, Magistrate Judge Lewis issued a report and recommendation recommending that the Court grant Respondent's motion to dismiss. ... the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 25) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED. It is further ordered that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“On February 20, 2018, the Hon. Peter C. Lewis issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny all relief. ... the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as supplemented by the reasoning in this Order, dismisses the petition, and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Respondent.”
“the Report and Recommendation (‘Report’) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) be granted in part and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) be denied. ... this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report in its entirety. It is further ordered that this action be remanded to the Social Security Administration for further consideration”
“Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“On November 14, 2013, the Honorable Peter C. Lewis, United States Magistrate Judge (‘Magistrate Judge’) denied Petitioner's motion for discovery because he failed to state a specific allegation that, if fully developed, would entitle him to relief under Rule 6. ... the Magistrate Judge's denial of Petitioner's Motion for Amendment of Discovery was not clearly erroneous. ... the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's Objection”
“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.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court (1) OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections, (2) ADOPTS Judge Lewis’s R&R in its entirety, (ECF No. 50), and (3) GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 47).”
“Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, (ECF No. 49), DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.”
“For the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS the R&R and DENIES the Petition in its entirety.”
“Petitioner’s Objections are OVERRULED, the R&R is ADOPTED, and the Petition is DENIED.”
“The request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED as to the due process, equal protection, and First Amendment claims and DENIED as to the Eighth Amendment and California law claims.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. Petitioner’s objections to the Report are OVERRULED. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.”
“No objections having been filed, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in full and DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Across the sampled assigned civil cases, durations ran from roughly five months to more than five years (one long-running construction/contract case), clustering around a year; the record also shows a heavy border criminal-duty docket that turns over in days. This describes the mix of matters before the judge, not how he tended to rule.
A historical record
Judge Lewis no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.