Youlee Yim You
How Judge You rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge You
Youlee Yim You has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Oregon since March 2016. Before joining the federal bench, she served as a judge of the Multnomah County Circuit Court and held positions with the Oregon Department of Justice, the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, and public defender offices.
Judge You's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge You, 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
When seeking a continuance, confer first and propose specific new dates.
“they should file a written motion for continuance after conferring with each other.”
Motions
Judge You schedules oral argument only if it would help resolve the motion.
“The parties will be contacted if, after reviewing the briefing, Judge You believes oral argument will be helpful in resolving the motion.”
Discovery
Jointly email the courtroom deputy about a discovery dispute for a prompt telephone hearing.
“If the parties have a discovery dispute, they should jointly email Courtroom Deputy Trish Hunt”
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 You decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security review, generic daily activities do not undermine symptom testimony unless the activities actually conflict with the asserted limitations; an isolated treatment note is not enough when the longitudinal record points the other way.
“A single treatment note is insufficient to impeach plaintiff's testimony where the record otherwise contains ample evidence supporting plaintiff's claimed difficulty leaving his house.”
In an Oregon insurance dispute, You distinguished Moody because this case lacked comparable objective indicators of serious emotional injury and broader societal impact.
“this case involves both the same statute and a similar 'mutual expectation of service and reliance' as Moody, but it lacks the 'objective indicators of possibly serious emotional injury' and broader societal impact that were present in that case.”
Procedural preferences
In a Social Security appeal, You recommended further agency proceedings because ambiguities and inconsistencies in the record left the claimant’s disability unresolved.
“there remain ambiguities and inconsistencies in the record that call into question whether plaintiff is disabled.”
In a civil-rights case, You found the self-represented plaintiff capable of understanding the procedural rules, submitting and citing evidence, and explaining his claims when considering his request for counsel.
“plaintiff is capable of understanding the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, submitting evidence into the record and citing to it, and understanding the legal framework applicable to his civil rights claims.”
At step five of benefits review, an error concerning two identified jobs was harmless when a third occupation independently existed in significant numbers in the national economy.
“Because the housekeeping cleaner job alone exists in significant numbers in the national economy (175,000), it independently satisfies the Commissioner’s burden at step five”
Cautions
In Seeley v. Portland Public Schools, You treated several differently captioned filings challenging removal as Rule 59(e) reconsideration motions and denied them because they offered no new evidence, intervening law, or other grounds to revisit the ruling. She warned that further motions on removability could draw sanctions.
“Further motions practice from plaintiff regarding the removability of this case may subject plaintiff to sanctions under Rule 11 or the court's inherent authority.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The F&R, ECF 22, is adopted in full. This Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF 8, and DENIES as moot Defendant's motion to strike, ECF 15. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“DENIES as moot Defendant's motion to strike, ECF 15.”
“the Court ADOPTS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation, ECF [82]. Accordingly, Barker's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF [59], is GRANTED, and American Family's claims against Barker are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Judge You recommended that this Court deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of Plaintiffs Rahel Patterson and Takyla Harris for lack of standing, and therefore lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #23) is GRANTED and this case is dismissed without prejudice.”
“Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 52) is GRANTED and this case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.”
“the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED and this case is DISMISSED.”
“The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Vacate Order of Default (ECF #11) is GRANTED, and the entry of default entered on October 13, 2020, is vacated.”
“the motion is granted and the Clerk's entry of default is vacated.”
“The order vacating the entry of default renders the following motions moot: plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF 18)”
“The court cannot conclude that plaintiff engaged in willful conduct that warrants the imposition of sanctions.”
“Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Sanctions for Spoilage of Evidence (ECF 48) ... the motion is denied but with leave to renew”
“It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. ... each claim and/or cause of action asserted by Plaintiff Caitlyn Elwin against all Defendants ... is DISMISSED with prejudice to refiling.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The Portland sample includes insurance, employment and religious-discrimination, Social Security, and other civil-rights matters.
- As a magistrate judge, You enters final judgments when the parties consent to her jurisdiction and issues recommendations in referred cases.
- Several sampled matters ended by stipulated dismissal. Reported durations measure the life of each case, not the time taken to decide a motion.
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 | 13 |
| 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 | 12 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 13 | 12 |
| Sep 2025 | 10 | 11 |
| Mar 2025 | 7 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 21 | 14 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 13 |
| Sep 2023 | 10 | 15 |
| Mar 2023 | 9 | 16 |
| Sep 2022 | 9 | 17 |
| Mar 2022 | 17 | 17 |
| Sep 2021 | 8 | 21 |
| Mar 2021 | 29 | 11 |
| Sep 2020 | 47 | 8 |
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 Oregon, not for Judge You: 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 | 1,647 | 9.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 300 | 5.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,316 | 10.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 9 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 22 | 33.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,647 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,633 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,472 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,620 | 13.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,501 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,536 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,596 | 11.6 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 You with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge You, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge You's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace