Richard J. Arcara
How Judge Arcara rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Arcara
Richard Joseph Arcara is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Arcara received a commission on February 22, 1988. Judge Arcara assumed senior status on January 3, 2015.
Judge Arcara's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Arcara, 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
The court issues a scheduling order after filing a motion, including response and oral-argument dates.
“Once a motion is filed, the Court will issue a scheduling order setting forth a date for response and oral argument.”
Motions
Adjournment or deadline extensions require a formal motion; letters and faxes are not accepted.
“A request for an adjournment or enlargement of a deadline set forth in a prior order must be made by formal motion. Judge Arcara does not accept letters or faxes.”
Motions
Requests for injunctive relief must follow Local Rule 65, and expedited requests must also comply with Local Rule 7(d).
“Requests for injunctive relief shall be made in the form and manner set forth in Local Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the Western District of New York.”
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).
- Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents (Amended General Order 167) ↗
- General Order 157: Disclosure of Members, Shareholders, Partners, and Leaders of Business Organization Parties ↗
- General Order 166: Identification Procedures in Courthouses ↗
- General Order 168: Dispositive Referrals of Social Security Appeals to United States Magistrate Judge ↗
How Judge Arcara decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Social Security appeal, he remanded because the ALJ’s summary rejection of Dr. Rawal’s absenteeism opinion prevented meaningful review and required a fuller analysis of supportability and consistency.
“The ALJ's summary rejection of Dr. Rawal's opinion regarding absenteeism 'precludes the Court from undertaking meaningful review' of the ALJ's decision to reject it... Accordingly, remand is also required on this basis. On remand, the ALJ must articulate in a more detailed fashion her assessment of Dr. Rawal's opinion, including how she considered the 'supportability' and 'consistency' factors.”
In Skinner's Social Security appeal, Arcara affirmed the denial of benefits because the ALJ explained how treatment notes and a partly credited state-agency opinion supported the mental residual-functional-capacity finding.
“[S]ubstantial evidence supports the mental RFC finding because the ALJ utilized Plaintiff's treatment notes in conjunction with portions of the state agency consultant's opinion. Therefore, the ALJ did not solely rely on his lay opinion... It is not the duty of this Court to re-weigh any conflicting evidence and evaluate the proper weight that should be allocated to each piece.”
In a Social Security fee ruling, Arcara approved the contingent fee after checking the agreement, the result obtained, counsel’s experience, hours, and whether the award would be a windfall. The court required counsel to refund the previously received statutory fee to the client.
“this Court finds that the requested fee is reasonable based on counsel’s experience in social security law, the character of the representation provided, and the favorable results achieved.”
Procedural preferences
In DeLee, Arcara dismissed a pro se prisoner’s civil rights suit without prejudice because it was filed a few days before the prison grievance appeal was due for decision. He found that the grievance body’s later delay did not excuse the premature filing.
“But that is the case here; plaintiff could prove no set of facts to excuse his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies by filing this action even before his administrative appeal to CORC was due to be decided.”
On review of a suppression recommendation, he found that Pennick’s incorporation of earlier arguments without specific objections or legal authority did not preserve the issue for review.
“Defendant Pennick purports to object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny his motion to suppress his post-arrest oral statements by incorporating arguments he made before the Magistrate Judge, without specifically identifying any proposed finding or recommendation to which he objects and without citation to legal authority. As a result, the defendant's purported objections failed to preserve an issue on this subject.”
In a FOIA summary-judgment dispute over two withheld pages, Arcara deferred the unresolved motions and ordered the pages produced for in camera review after the agency declaration failed to address them.
“the most efficient way to resolve the matter is for the 2 disputed pages to be provided to it for in camera review.”
Cautions
In Thomas v. Kane, Arcara dismissed a prisoner’s civil rights complaint as untimely or barred by Heck v. Humphrey. He held that later correspondence only confirmed facts the plaintiff had learned earlier.
“The Complaint is dismissed on the ground that it is untimely or barred by the favorable termination rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)... This was merely confirmation of the information that was revealed on September 29, 2017.”
In Vickers’s postconviction fraud-on-the-court motion, revisiting witness credibility and evidence available for testing at trial did not show the extraordinary misconduct needed to reopen the judgment.
“That the jury saw things differently than him hardly establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a fraud was perpetrated upon this Court.”
In Payne’s postverdict Rule 29/33 challenge, Arcara reviewed asserted trial errors both separately and together before rejecting the request for a new trial.
“Considering each argument separately, and again in the aggregate, the Court finds the jury’s verdict was not manifestly unjust.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
The judge accepted a guilty plea to a one-count information taken by a magistrate judge on referral, adopting the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. This ruling accepts a plea rather than deciding a party motion, so it is not counted toward motion statistics.
The judge accepted a guilty plea to a conspiracy count taken by a magistrate judge on referral, adopting the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. This ruling accepts a plea rather than deciding a party motion, so it is not counted toward motion statistics.
“For the reasons stated, plaintiffs motion to remand is denied.”
“ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.”
“ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Bianchini’s Report and Recommendation, petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice.”
“ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s Report and Recommendation, defendant’s motion to suppress is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the reasons stated, the EEOC’s motion to bifurcate trial and discovery is granted in part, but denied to the extent that it seeks a punitive damages determination at Stage I.”
“In sum, (1) plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction are denied, (2) enforcement of the New York tax law amendments is stayed pending appeal, and (3) the motions for court-ordered mediation and to opt out of court-ordered mediation are denied without prejudice to renew after appeal.”
“For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby grants plaintiffs motion (Dkt. No. 51) in part with respect to plaintiffs claims under Sections 1692b(2) and 1692c(b) of the FDCPA. The Court accordingly vacates the judgment (Dkt. No. 50) and directs the Clerk of the Court to file a new judgment reflecting that plaintiff has established a violation of the above sections of the FDCPA as a matter of law.”
“The Court denies defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 67) in its entirety.”
“Upon such review and after hearing argument from counsel, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Foschio’s Decision and Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court affirms the Decision and Order.”
“For the reasons stated, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the State under the ASA, and denies plaintiffs motion for a salvage award.”
“Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied and the case is remanded to the Commissioner for a rehearing pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Now a senior judge, his current docket is dominated by criminal cases (largely resolved through magistrate-judge Rule 11 plea proceedings he then approves) alongside Social Security disability appeals decided on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.
- His older docket, drawn on for this sample's habeas and prisoner-litigation motions, includes a substantial volume of state-prisoner Section 2254 habeas petitions and federal prisoner Section 2255 motions to vacate sentence, most resolved by adopting a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.
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 | 7 |
| 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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 7 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 11 |
| Mar 2025 | 12 | 15 |
| Sep 2024 | 26 | 20 |
| Mar 2024 | 29 | 29 |
| Sep 2023 | 24 | 38 |
| Mar 2023 | 35 | 41 |
| Sep 2022 | 66 | 41 |
| Mar 2022 | 88 | 39 |
| Sep 2021 | 107 | 47 |
| Mar 2021 | 132 | 58 |
| Sep 2020 | 130 | 60 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, not for Judge Arcara: 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 | 1,499 | 9.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 91 | 8.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,344 | 8.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 56 | 28.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,499 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,783 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,768 | 15.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,892 | 15.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,130 | 14.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,177 | 14.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,971 | 14.8 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 Arcara with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Arcara, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Arcara's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace