John F. Robbenhaar
How Judge Robbenhaar rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Robbenhaar
John F. Robbenhaar has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Mexico since May 2019, with chambers in Albuquerque. Before his appointment, he worked as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Albuquerque and practiced criminal defense in New Mexico.
Judge Robbenhaar's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Robbenhaar, 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
Motions
Even by stipulation, seek an extension longer than ten days by motion filed by the original deadline.
“Even if stipulated, parties seeking an extension in excess of ten (10) days for any filing deadline must file a Motion to Extend with the Court by the day of the original deadline.”
Discovery
Before filing a motion to compel, use Judge Robbenhaar’s informal discovery resolution process.
“Motions to compel will not be accepted unless the parties first utilize this informal resolution procedure.”
Trial
Notify the court at least two weeks before trial if special audiovisual equipment is needed.
“Notify the Court at least two weeks in advance of trial if you need audio-visual or other special equipment.”
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 Robbenhaar decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Beyale, Robbenhaar declined to strike late expert disclosures after finding that a limited schedule extension could cure the defense prejudice and that the delay did not show bad faith.
“Second, Plaintiff’s violation can be cured by seeking an extension of the current case”
Procedural preferences
In Hicks, Judge Robbenhaar recommended dismissal with prejudice because the complaint did not allege a custom or policy supporting entity liability, and he recommended denying further amendment as futile after repeated failures to cure the pleading.
“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.”
In the same case, repeated failures to follow the federal and local procedural rules weighed against allowing another amendment.
“Judge Robbenhaar also lamented Plaintiff's routine failures to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this District's Local Rules.”
In Centurion, Robbenhaar ordered steps to recover or destroy material disclosed contrary to a protective order and allowed a compensatory fee submission, while declining more intrusive discovery and counsel removal.
“The Court finds these sanctions are adequate to repair the harm suffered by Centurion.”
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.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, not for Judge Robbenhaar: 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 | 908 | 8.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 150 | 4.1 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 511 | 7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 242 | 13.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 5 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 908 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 918 | 8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 835 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 973 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 909 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 957 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 965 | 9.6 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 Robbenhaar with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Robbenhaar, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Robbenhaar's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace