Maria E. Garcia
How Judge Garcia rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Garcia
Maria E. Garcia has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Connecticut since June 2022. A graduate of Tufts University and George Washington University Law School, she previously practiced employment law and clerked for Magistrate Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons.
Judge Garcia's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Garcia, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Electronic filings do not require courtesy copies.
“Judge Garcia does not require courtesy copies of any materials filed electronically.”
Motions
File requests for relief on the docket rather than by letter brief.
“Judge Garcia prefers that all requests for relief be filed through CM/ECF and on the record.”
Motions
Seek the court’s permission by motion before filing a sur-reply.
“Sur-reply briefs may not be filed without prior permission of the Court. If a party believes that a sur-reply is necessary, that party should file a motion seeking permission to sur-reply”
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Garcia decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rebecca J. v. Bisignano, Garcia applied substantial-evidence review to the ALJ's disability finding. She found support in treatment records documenting noncompliance and in the claimant's later education and work, and affirmed the Commissioner's decision.
“once an ALJ finds facts, [a reviewing court] can reject those facts only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise.”
Procedural preferences
Expects a timely, carefully-considered Rule 26(f) report and usually defers to counsel's scheduling agreements; does not accept letter briefs or unauthorized sur-replies; resolves discovery disputes by telephonic conference (per her chambers practices). Requires Local Rule 7(b) good cause for extensions.
“Judge Garcia expects counsel to prepare and timely file a carefully considered 26(f) Report.”
Cautions
In Bailey v. Riehl, Garcia found the applicant's financial affidavit incomplete because it did not explain how he supported himself despite reporting no assets, liabilities, or monthly obligations. She ordered him to pay the filing fee or submit a fuller affidavit.
“it is insufficient to write ‘0.00’ or ‘none’ on every line of the financial statement; rather, the plaintiff must indicate with greater specificity the amount of his income, the value of his assets, and the extent of his liabilities.”
In Yolanda C. S. v. Bisignano, Garcia remanded a Social Security denial after finding that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity did not address migraine-related light sensitivity and other functional effects.
“the ALJ’s RFC contains no limitation addressing exposure to bright light, fluorescent lighting, or similar environmental triggers.”
After repeated noncompliance with a discovery order, she barred use of documents produced after the deadline and deemed a complaint allegation established.
“Mr. Netter is precluded from availing himself of documents he produced after the Court’s March 31, 2026 deadline”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner or in the Alternative Motion for Remand for a Hearing is DENIED (ECF No. 22)”
“the Commissioner's Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner is GRANTED (ECF No. 25). The Clerk of the Court will enter judgment in favor of Defendant.”
“the Recommended Ruling, ECF No. 23, is ADOPTED in its entirety ... Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner, ECF No. 16, is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion to Affirm the Commissioner's Decision, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED.”
“the Court orders that, by June 26, 2024, Plaintiff must either (a) pay the filing fee or (b) submit a revised financial affidavit that fully and candidly explains how he supports himself.”
“Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification is granted with the modifications to the class definition discussed above. ECF No. 192.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel documents listed on Defendant's July 7 and 25, 2025 privilege logs is GRANTED. Defendant shall turn over the documents to Plaintiff within fourteen (14) days of this Order. For the reasons stated, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and MOOT in part. ECF No. 34.”
“Warden Martin moves to dismiss Count Two of the Amended Complaint, a First Amendment retaliation claim, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his Amended Complaint as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (‘PLRA’) ... For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. ECF No. 72. ... Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Count Two of the Amended Complaint on the ground that Plaintiff did not fully exhaust his available administrative remedies and/or was not thwarted from doing so is denied. ... Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Two of the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 72] is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Inspection is granted over objection.”
“The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objection, supplemental arguments and newly discovered facts, and is unpersuaded. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 44) but ultimately retains its position.”
“The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Compel finding that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden that there was a ‘compelling need’ for the information, thus failing to overcome this Circuit's strong presumption against lifting the law enforcement privilege protecting the CI's identity.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner or in the Alternative Motion for Remand for a Hearing is GRANTED (ECF No. 18)”
“the Commissioner's Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner is DENIED. (ECF No. 26)”
“For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted. ECF No. 339.”
“The Court further finds that a reduction of $5,000 representing the amount of EAJA fees Plaintiff’s counsel could have obtained but did not is warranted. As such, Plaintiff’s counsel shall be paid attorney’s fees in the net amount of $16,272.00, out of funds withheld from Plaintiff's past-due benefits.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Her civil docket includes consent Social Security appeals in which she enters the final judgment, along with referred discovery, case-management, class-certification, and prisoner matters.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, not for Judge Garcia: 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 | 1,471 | 6.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 227 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 833 | 5.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 401 | 13.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 36.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,471 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,501 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,468 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,598 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,456 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,683 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,877 | 9.2 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 Garcia with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Garcia, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Garcia's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace