Maria Valdez
How Judge Valdez rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Valdez
Maria Valdez has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Illinois since May 2005 and was Chief Magistrate Judge from 2016 to 2020. She earned degrees from the University of California, Los Angeles and UC Hastings College of the Law. Before joining the bench, she worked as a federal public defender and in civil-rights litigation.
Judge Valdez's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Valdez, 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
Motions
State in a motion whether it is joint or the other parties agree or have no objection.
“The body of any motion must state if the motion is joint, or if the other parties have authorized the movant to state that the parties either agree to the motion or have no objection to it.”
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).
How Judge Valdez decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In one consent Social Security review, Valdez remanded after finding the administrative hearing abnormally hostile and the residual-functional-capacity analysis inattentive to mental-health testimony. Concrete contradictions between sporadic daily activities and full-time work capacity mattered.
“The Court agrees that the hearing was abnormally hostile”
Procedural preferences
In Edgar W. v. O’Malley, Valdez remanded a Social Security denial because the administrative law judge had not adequately explained the decision to discount a treating physician’s opinion. She granted the claimant’s summary-judgment motion in part and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion.
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 29] is granted in part and denied in part, and the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 31] is denied. The Court finds that this matter should be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order.”
In Larry H. v. Kijakazi, Valdez denied the claimant’s motion to reverse or remand a Social Security disability decision and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
“For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion to reverse or remand the Commissioner's decision [Doc. No. 16] is denied, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 21] is granted.”
In Resurrection Healthcare v. GE Health Care, Valdez granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery responses in part and denied it in part.
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [Doc. No. 39] is granted in part and denied in part.”
Cautions
One consent fee-shifting decision awarded the prevailing plaintiff $164,955.37 in attorney fees.
“Plaintiff is awarded $164,955.37 in attorney's fees.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 19] is denied and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 27] is granted.”
“For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion to reverse or remand the Commissioner's decision [Doc. No. 16] is denied, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 21] is granted.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [Doc. No. 13] is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 20] is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [Doc. No. 39] is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion to Bar J. Thomas' Testimony or in the Alternative to Depose Thomas [Doc. No. 180] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Plaintiff is awarded $164,955.37 in attorney's fees.”
“It is for those aforementioned reasons; the Court respectfully recommends that Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement [Doc. No. 42] be GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 12] is granted in part and denied in part, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 17] is denied. The Court finds that this matter should be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request to reverse the Commissioner's decision is granted in part and denied in part, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 24] is denied. The Court finds that this matter should be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 29] is granted in part and denied in part, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 31] is denied. The Court finds that this matter should be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 15] is granted in part and denied in part, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 22] is denied. The Court finds that this matter should be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The recent assigned docket is primarily duty-magistrate work, including sealed miscellaneous proceedings and criminal assignments.
- The written-order sample supplies the civil case mix: Social Security consent decisions, other consent civil rulings, referred discovery, witness issues, and settlement or dismissal recommendations.
- This describes observed matters rather than their frequency across the full docket.
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 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Northern District of Illinois, not for Judge Valdez: 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 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 4,300 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 7,558 | 5.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 305 | 12.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 42 | 49.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 9,700 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 7,093 | 6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,841 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 9,703 | 15.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,046 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 8,134 | 7.4 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 Valdez with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Valdez, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Valdez's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace