John F. Robbenhaar
How Judge Robbenhaar decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In pro se civil-rights / sec.1983 cases, holds plaintiffs to the substantive pleading standards and recommends Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal WITH PREJUDICE where the defect is incurable -- e.g. no Monell custom-or-policy allegation against a corporate/municipal entity, or claims barred by the statute of limitations -- and will recommend denying leave to amend as futile after repeated failures to cure.
“Judge Robbenhaar recommended that the Court grant the Motion, deny Plaintiff leave to amend his Operative Complaint, and dismiss Plaintiff's claim against SWCMG with prejudice.”
Expects all litigants, including pro se litigants, to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District's Local Rules; repeated non-compliance weighs against allowing further amendment.
“Judge Robbenhaar also lamented Plaintiff's routine failures to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this District's Local Rules.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Honorable John F. Robbenhaar, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss and dismiss with prejudice the Complaint. ... the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's 'Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983' and for Qualified Immunity ... is granted; ... the Civil Rights Complaint ... is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Judge Robbenhaar recommended that the Court grant the Motion, deny Plaintiff leave to amend his Operative Complaint, and dismiss Plaintiff's claim against SWCMG with prejudice. ... the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections; ADOPTS the PFRD; GRANTS SWCMG's Motion; and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claim against it WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The PFRD recommends that the Court grant the Defendants' Motion to Consolidate ... (ii) Defendants' Motion to Consolidate, filed May 1, 2024 (Doc. 30), is granted; (iii) that this matter is consolidated with Martinez Jr. v. Sandoval, et al., No. CIV 24-0346 KG/JMR”
“recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion is not well taken and recommends that it be DENIED”
“the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion is not well taken and recommends that it be DENIED”
“the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion is well-taken and recommends that it be GRANTED”
“the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce is well taken and recommends that the Motion be GRANTED”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) be GRANTED”
“Plaintiff's ‘Motion For Default Judgment unter [sic] Rule 56’ (Doc. 46) be DENIED AS MOOT”
“1. Defendant BCBC's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Martinez Report (Doc. 43) be GRANTED; and 2. Defendant City of Albuquerque's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46) be GRANTED”
“Judge Robbenhaar entered his PFRD recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and Counts 1 and 10-14 be dismissed”
“the undersigned recommends that Petitioners' Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 5) be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 376.5 days (N = 10).
By party consent, Judge Robbenhaar enters final decisions in a steady stream of Social Security disability appeals under Titles II and XVI. He also writes recommendations in civil-rights and prisoner-conditions cases and has handled additional civil-rights referrals, including McMurry v. Bloomfield Municipal School Board. This describes the composition of his work, not a grant rate.
Put Judge Robbenhaar's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Robbenhaar actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Robbenhaar's own signed orders and cites them.