Matthew L. Garcia
How Judge Garcia rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Garcia
Matthew Lane Garcia is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Garcia received a commission on February 21, 2023.
Judge Garcia's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Garcia, 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.
- Civil Pretrial Instructions and Deadlines ↗
- Criminal Pretrial Instructions and Deadlines ↗
- Remote Hearings ↗
Key rules
Motions
In a criminal case before Garcia, file pretrial motions, including Daubert motions, 30 days before trial.
“30 days prior to trial 1. All pre-trial motions including Daubert motions.”
Conferences
Garcia permits virtual or remote hearing appearances only in extraordinary circumstances.
“Absent extraordinary circumstances, Judge Garcia does not permit parties to appear virtually/remotely for hearings.”
Trial
The parties must jointly prepare a proposed pretrial order in civil cases before Garcia.
“the parties shall jointly prepare and submit a Proposed Pretrial Order containing the following components, absent prior modification by 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 Garcia decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In a consolidated antitrust case, the court held personal-jurisdiction dismissal requests in abeyance and permitted limited discovery because key facts about defendants’ business contacts required a fuller record.
“Accordingly, the Court finds that some limited jurisdictional discovery is both necessary and appropriate.”
In Murphy v. Chavez, he granted remand after finding that the removing defendants missed the thirty-day deadline, even though the plaintiffs had kept a nondiverse defendant in the case to prevent removal.
“The Court holds that although Plaintiffs joined Defendant Angel Chavez in bad faith, this case must be remanded because the notice of removal was untimely filed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Applying the Mhoon factors to these proceedings, the Court can identify no sound legal or factual basis to exercise jurisdiction over UFCC's request for declaratory judgment ... For this reason, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.”
“Applying the pragmatic approach required, both counts of the indictment satisfy Rule 7 and the Constitution. The Court thus denies Wilson's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 72.”
“It is hereby ordered that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration to Modify the December 13, 2023, Order is granted. Doc. 27. The Court's Second Order to Extend, Doc. 19, is amended such that Jarrell's second motion to extend time to serve Individual Defendants and serve them via publication, Doc. 17, is denied.”
“It is further ordered that Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied. Doc. 28. The Court grants Jarrell thirty (30) days from entry of this Order to personally serve Individual Defendants or seek leave to serve them by publication”
“Boyce has shown neither. Accordingly, his Motion is denied, Doc. 35.”
“Phillips's claims for violations of his Second and Fifth Amendments rights and Title VII are dismissed with prejudice. Phillips's wrongful termination and breach of implied contract claims under New Mexico law are dismissed without prejudice.”
“For this this reason, and based on the preceding discussion, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Certain Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 14).”
“It is hereby ordered that summary judgment is entered in favor of Bannister on the federal deliberate indifference claim. That claim is hereby dismissed with prejudice. The remaining state medical negligence claim is hereby dismissed without prejudice.”
“The Court hereby denies Defendants' Motion. Doc. 41. It is so ordered.”
“Franklin's habeas petition raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Doc. 1, is denied and this civil case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Accordingly, the Court finds that the good faith exception applies in this case to bar suppression. Kirkendoll's motion is therefore denied. Doc. 123.”
“The Court denies Gallegos's Motion to Suppress, Doc. 59, in its entirety. It is so ordered.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendant's Motion (Doc. 32) without prejudice. The Court orders that the Attorney General, through the BOP and the U.S. Marshals Service, transport Defendant to FMC Butner or another suitable facility for competency restoration proceedings no later than seven days from the entry of this Order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 188 days (N = 2).
The available records do not support a complete caseload census. Published orders and the one accessible docket show diversity insurance and Declaratory Judgment Act disputes, Title VII employment cases, and criminal matters, including an ISIS material-support prosecution. This limited description is not a base 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 | 17 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 17 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 6 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 30 | 10 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 5 |
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 Garcia: 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 Garcia with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Garcia, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Garcia's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace