Laura N. Fashing
How Judge Fashing rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Fashing
Laura N. Fashing has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of New Mexico since September 2015. Before joining the bench, she was an assistant U.S. attorney for the district and served as appellate chief. She earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania and a law degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.
Judge Fashing's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Fashing, 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.
- Trial Preparation Instructions ↗
- Phone Conferences to Resolve Minor Discovery Matters ↗
- Guidelines for Proposed Protective Orders ↗
Key rules
Filing
For a stipulated protective order, file the stipulated motion with the proposed order attached and email the proposed order in Word format.
“counsel should file a stipulated motion for protective order with the proposed protective order attached as an exhibit to the motion. The parties must also e-mail a copy of their proposed protective order (in Word format)”
Discovery
Before asking for a discovery phone conference, counsel must try to resolve the dispute by telephone or in person; email or letters alone do not suffice.
“Counsel first shall attempt to resolve the dispute themselves, by discussing the matter either by telephone or in person. An e-mail or letter exchange is not sufficient.”
Discovery
All parties must agree to a discovery phone conference before counsel contacts chambers to schedule it.
“All parties must agree to a telephone conference before any one counsel contacts chambers for an appointment.”
Trial
Exchange proposed exhibits and exhibit lists, furnish hard copies to the court, and file proposed lists 21 calendar days before the pretrial conference.
“TWENTY-ONE (21) calendar days before the pretrial conference, counsel for each party will exchange exhibits and proposed exhibit lists, provide hard copies of exhibits to the Court pursuant to these instructions, and file the proposed exhibit lists with the Court.”
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 Fashing decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In a civil-rights case, Fashing dismissed an official-capacity federal claim with prejudice but delayed remand of state claims for 14 days to permit a proposed amendment.
“the Court defers remanding Plaintiff’s state law claims to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint.”
In Ross v. Kelly, Fashing recommended dismissal with prejudice because Ross could have sought relief through an appeal and thus had an adequate legal remedy. She also noted that his failure to respond to the dismissal motion counted as consent under the local rule.
“Because Ross could remedy the alleged wrongs by way of an appeal, injunctive and declaratory relief is not available.”
In an August 2026 discovery dispute, she accepted a promptly corrected late response but cautioned that more late filings in that case could become an inexcusable pattern.
“Plaintiff should be warned that further late filings in this matter may constitute an inexcusable pattern of delay.”
In a challenge to insurance regulation, she found that the remaining allegations did not establish an actual or prospective injury and dismissed the case for lack of standing without prejudice.
“The two factual issues that are not precluded do not suffice, on their own or in combination with the other facts, to establish actual-injury or prospective-injury standing for plaintiffs.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court overrules Robinson's objections and adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remand it to state court.”
“I find that the motion is well-taken and recommend that it be granted, and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. ... I therefore recommend that the Court grant Judge Kelly's motion to dismiss (18-cv-9, Doc. 9) and dismiss Ross's complaint with prejudice.”
“The Court concludes that the Honorable Laura Fashing's ... PFRD is not clearly erroneous ... and the Court therefore adopts it. The Court will sanction Davis and enter default judgment against him on all issues of liability. ... (ii) the Court enters default judgment against Defendant Erikson Davis on all issues of liability”
“The Court determines that the conclusions of the Honorable Laura Fashing, United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, are not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, obviously contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion, and therefore adopts them. Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer, and transfers this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).”
“I recommend that the Court GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity (Doc. 42) and dismiss Mr. Long’s complaint with prejudice.”
“I recommend that the Court DENY Mr. Lamb’s motion with respect to the transport van video ... Further, I recommend that the Court DENY Mr. Lamb’s motion with regard to the video footage from the sally ports because defendants’ destruction of the video was merely negligent and not done in bad faith.”
“Having meticulously reviewed the entire record and being fully advised in the premises, I find that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary are unavailing. I therefore recommend that the Court DENY Plaintiff's motion.”
“I recommend that the Court GRANT Plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. 14).”
“I therefore recommend that the Court deny Mr. Nehemiah's three motions for summary judgment (Docs. 14, 15, 22) without prejudice as premature.”
“I recommend that the Court grant OPM's motion to dismiss.”
“The motion is therefore denied as moot.”
“the Court denies Mr. Hester's motions for counsel (Docs. 21, 39).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 441 days (N = 9).
By party consent, Judge Fashing enters final decisions in Social Security disability appeals. Her work also includes diversity insurance and personal-injury cases, FOIA and APA suits involving federal immigration agencies, debt-collection disputes, and recommendations in civil-rights cases. This describes the composition of her 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Fashing: 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 Fashing with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Fashing, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Fashing's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace