William Q. Hayes
How Judge Hayes rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hayes
William Q. Hayes is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Hayes received a commission on October 6, 2003. Judge Hayes assumed senior status on August 1, 2021.
Judge Hayes's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hayes, 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
Submit proposed orders in Word format with motions that are not fully noticed for a hearing at least 28 days after filing.
“Proposed orders must be submitted in Word format simultaneously with all motions that are not fully noticed and set for hearing twenty-eight (28) days or more after the date of filing.”
Filing
Courtesy copies are not required for filings shorter than 20 pages, counting attachments and exhibits.
“The Court does not require courtesy copies for filings less than 20 pages in length, including attachments and exhibits.”
Motions
Attach a separate statement of undisputed material facts to every summary judgment motion.
“All motions for summary judgment must be accompanied by a separate statement of undisputed material facts.”
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 Hayes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On sec.1983 claims against private actors (bail bondsmen), requires evidence of state action / a conspiracy with police; absent a causal connection to the officers’ conduct, summary judgment goes to the private defendant, but the core Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against the officer is preserved for trial where material facts are disputed.
“There is insufficient evidence of a causal connection between Macey and Escamilla’s actions and the assertedly unconstitutional actions of Sergeant Holslag.”
In a medical reimbursement dispute, Hayes allowed summary judgment only for three fully denied claims; the dollar amounts tied to thirteen partial denials remained factually disputed even though the parties agreed on the legal basis for those denials.
“there remains an issue of fact about the dollar amount of medical charges associated with each denial code”
Procedural preferences
Strict pre-filing PLRA exhaustion: a prisoner must complete a third-level MERITS decision before filing suit; a group appeal granted at lower levels then rejected at the third level does not exhaust.
“A cancellation or rejection at the third level does not exhaust an inmate[’]s administrative remedies because it is not a decision on the merits of the claim.”
In McCullock v. Brown, he stated that a district court need not review unobjected portions of a magistrate judge’s report de novo.
“The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which neither party objects.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 58) is granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is granted. ... the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g).”
“The Commissioner's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) is denied.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Dan Escamilla (ECF No. 215) is granted.”
“the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Sergeant Scott Holslag and City of San Diego (ECF No. 217) is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion is granted as to the first claim by individual heirs Wyatt Smith and Simmons for violation of the Fourth Amendment, the fourth claim ... for battery, and the fifth claim by Simmons for wrongful death, and is otherwise denied.”
“the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Natalie Ann Macey (ECF No. 219) is granted.”
“the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Sergeant David Brecht and City of San Diego (ECF No. 220) is granted.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) is granted. This case is dismissed. ...”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust tribal remedies is GRANTED. (Doc. # 17). Except as discussed above, the Court does not reach the other issues raised by the Motion to Dismiss.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Burnett LLP ... (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed.”
“The Motion for Order Declaring Plaintiffs Vexatious Litigants filed by Defendant Burnett LLP ... (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is granted in part and denied in part ... Defendant's Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's FDCPA claim. Defendant's Motion is also GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's request for punitive damages ... Defendant's Motion is DENIED with respect to its request for summary judgment on its bona fide error affirmative defense. Defendant's Motion is DENIED with respect to its request that the Court dismiss this action for lack of Article III standing.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that PIIC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Adjudication of Issues (ECF No. 17) is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding [PIIC's] Duty to Defend (ECF No. 18) is granted.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend (ECF No. 51) is granted.”
“the pending Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 18, 19, 24, 42) are denied as moot because they address a pleading which will be superseded by the FAC.”
“is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.”
“the Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. ECF Nos. 167, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 183) are granted.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Parte Motion to Stay Pending Ninth Circuit Appeal (ECF No. 208) is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 265 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 168 days (N = 3).
Judge Hayes's broad docket includes a substantial criminal border caseload as well as telephone-consumer, credit-reporting, and debt-collection claims; Social Security appeals; prisoner civil-rights and state habeas matters; insurance and benefits disputes; public-records litigation; and illegal-reentry prosecutions. This describes caseload composition rather than how he tended to rule.
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 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 3 |
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 Hayes: 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 Hayes with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hayes, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hayes's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace