Robert Steven Huie
How Judge Huie rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Huie
Robert Steven Huie is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Huie received a commission on June 14, 2022.
Judge Huie's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Huie, 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
Filing
Within 24 hours of filing a document over 20 pages, deliver a file-stamped courtesy copy to the clerk for the judge.
“for any document which exceeds 20 pages in length (including attachments and exhibits), the filing party must deliver within 24 hours after filing a file-stamped courtesy copy to the Clerk’s Office to be placed in Judge Huie’s box.”
Filing
Do not file proposed orders or documents requiring the judge’s signature on the docket.
“Proposed orders or other documents requiring the judge’s signature must not be filed on the docket.”
Motions
Set a noticed motion hearing 35 days after filing the motion.
“Parties filing a noticed motion must set the hearing date to be thirty-five (35) days from the motion’s filing date.”
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 Huie decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Petconnect Rescue’s post-trial proceedings, he denied the defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.
“DENIES Defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, ECF No. 378.”
Procedural preferences
In Mascorro’s case, he denied the plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of an electronic-filing decision, explaining that one earlier accommodation did not entitle the plaintiff to every requested accommodation.
“his motion for reconsideration is DENIED (ECF No. 139)”
In settlement-enforcement briefing, a confidentiality clause and generalized disclosure concerns did not justify sealing; a party seeking secrecy must identify concrete harm sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access.
“The Parties have not overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. The motions to seal are therefore denied.”
A proposed sur-reply that adds no new facts or authority and merely seeks the last word is not enough to justify supplemental briefing.
“Tomo simply seeks to have the last word. This is not a valid basis for a sur-reply”
In an immigration-detention petition where the government conceded a bond hearing was due, he ordered that hearing within seven days but declined immediate release because the petition did not establish a basis for it.
“The Court declines to order Petitioner’s immediate release, on the grounds that the Petition does not establish a basis for that relief.”
Cautions
In Mascorro’s civil-rights case, he dismissed most federal claims without leave to amend but allowed an unlawful-arrest claim against three officers to proceed.
“The City's motion to dismiss the TAC, ECF No. 121, is GRANTED.”
In Dean v. Zhang, he denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment.
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment [ECF No. 52] is DENIED.”
In a detention case challenging an immigration judge’s bond denial, the court declined habeas review while the petitioner’s administrative appeal remained pending.
“Petitioner is required to exhaust his administrative remedies through an appeal to the BIA before seeking habeas review of the immigration judge’s adverse bond determination.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The City's motion to dismiss the TAC, ECF No. 121, is GRANTED.”
“HPR and Lee's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 123, is GRANTED. ... All of Plaintiff's state claims against Defendants HPR, the House of Norway, Lee, King, and Mogstad are dismissed without leave to amend; those five Defendants are accordingly dismissed from the action.”
“HPR and Lee's motion to strike, ECF No. 122, is GRANTED.”
“The Police Officer and Park Ranger Defendants' motion to dismiss the TAC, ECF No. 125, is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim for unlawful arrest (Claim One) against Defendants Green, Larson, and Rodriguez only, and is in all other respects GRANTED.”
“The Court agrees with HPR and Lee that Plaintiff’s motion is premature at this stage in the litigation. ... Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.”
“denies Plaintiff's motion for leave to file new lawsuits”
“Plaintiff's motion for a stay pending appeal (ECF No. 141) is DENIED.”
“his motion for reconsideration is DENIED (ECF No. 139)”
“Plaintiff's motion for clarification is GRANTED and his motion for reconsideration is DENIED (ECF No. 139)”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment [ECF No. 52] is DENIED.”
“DENIES Defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, ECF No. 378.”
“DENIES Defendants' motion for a new trial, ECF No. 379.”
“GRANTS Defendant Select Puppies Inc.'s motion for judgment on Claims Five and Six, ECF No. 377.”
“DENIES Defendants' motion for attorney fees and costs, ECF No. 380.”
“DENIES Plaintiff PetConnect Rescue Inc.'s motion for attorney fees and costs, ECF No. 382. ... DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for catalyst fees, ECF No. 383.”
“the Court therefore dismisses the Eighth Amendment claims without prejudice”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Court DISMISSES the Complaint with leave to amend”
“this case shall be REMANDED to the San Diego County Superior Court”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the County’s motion”
“the Court grants in part and denies in part UFB’s motion”
“the Parties’ motions to seal [ECF Nos. 47, 49, 53, 55] are DENIED.”
“Tomo’s motion to file a sur-reply brief [ECF No. 57] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to remand [ECF No. 20] is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 643 days (N = 11).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 211 days (N = 3).
Judge Huie's 2020-2022 civil docket includes securities enforcement and shareholder disputes, employee-benefits and insurance cases, prisoner civil-rights actions, trademark and fraud claims, contract disputes, and diversity removals.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 10 |
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 Huie: 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 Huie with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Huie, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Huie's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace