Laura N. Fashing

United States District Court for the District of New Mexico magistrate 14 signed orders read

How Judge Fashing decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Procedural preferences

Polices subject-matter jurisdiction strictly: recommends dismissal/remand under the well-pleaded-complaint rule when a case is improperly removed, rather than reaching the merits.

“the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remand it to state court.”

Bars equitable/declaratory relief where the litigant had (and abandoned) an adequate remedy at law such as appeal; treats the Declaratory Judgment Act as no substitute for appeal -- and, although a pro se non-response counts as consent under the local rule, still decides dispositive motions on the merits for pro se litigants.

“Because Ross could remedy the alleged wrongs by way of an appeal, injunctive and declaratory relief is not available.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Robinson et al. v. Los Alamos National Security, LLC et al.
1:15-cv-00839-KG-LF
Remand (court) Granted

“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.”

Ross v. Hon. Paul Kelly
1:18-cv-00009-JCH-LF
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Real Estate Law Center, PC et al.
1:17-cv-00251-JB-LF
Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Granted

“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”

King v. Wormuth
1:22-cv-00612-JB-LF · 2023-05-24
Motion to transfer venue (defendant) Granted

“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).”

Long v. San Juan County Detention Center
1:21-cv-01175-DHU-LF · 2023-11-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Lamb v. Cordero
1:22-cv-00485-WJ-LF · 2024-06-10
Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Denied

“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.”

Biernacki v. Social Security Administration
1:24-cv-00726-DHU-LF · 2025-02-03
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“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.”

Monika K. v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:24-cv-00884
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“I recommend that the Court GRANT Plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. 14).”

Nehemiah v. Director of the Office of Personnel Management
1:24-cv-00929
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“I therefore recommend that the Court deny Mr. Nehemiah's three motions for summary judgment (Docs. 14, 15, 22) without prejudice as premature.”

Nehemiah v. Director of the Office of Personnel Management
1:24-cv-00929
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“I recommend that the Court grant OPM's motion to dismiss.”

Nehemiah v. Director of the Office of Personnel Management
1:24-cv-00929
Motion to reinstate (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“The motion is therefore denied as moot.”

Hester v. Lea County Correctional Facility (GEO Group) Staff
2:23-cv-00516
Motion to appoint counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“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.

Put Judge Fashing's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Fashing actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Fashing's own signed orders and cites them.