Pamela A. Carlos
How Judge Carlos rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Carlos
Pamela A. Carlos has served as a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania since 2021. Based in Allentown, she previously practiced civil litigation and earned her law degree from Temple University.
Judge Carlos's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Carlos, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
File any letter motion on the docket.
“such letter motions are also to be filed of record.”
Motions
Seek permission before filing a reply or supplemental brief.
“Judge Carlos will not normally permit reply or supplemental briefs. Counsel desiring to file a such a brief must first seek permission of the Court before such a brief will be accepted.”
Discovery
Put discovery-dispute letter memoranda on the docket, including efforts to resolve the dispute and requested relief.
“Such memoranda should include the steps taken to resolve the dispute as well as the relief requested and should be docketed.”
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 8, 2026).
- Standing Order on Procedure for Case Opening ↗
- Standing Order on Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order on Access and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order on Filing Procedures in Alien Detainee Cases ↗
- Second Amended Standing Order on Guilty Pleas and Sentencing ↗
- Standing Order on Electronic Document Submission for Unrepresented Litigants ↗
- Standing Procedural Order for Cases Seeking Social Security Review ↗
- Superseding Standing Order on Procedural Matters in Pro Se Civil and Habeas Cases ↗
- Standing Order on Electronic Access to Civil and Criminal Transcripts ↗
How Judge Carlos decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a parole-denial habeas case, Magistrate Judge Carlos recommended denial after concluding that the parole board’s decision was neither arbitrary nor constitutionally impermissible and did not violate substantive due process.
“the Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’) issued by Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Carlos on August 26, 2025, ECF No. 19, which concluded that the Parole Board's decision to deny Petitioner parole was neither arbitrary nor constitutionally impermissible and did not violate Petitioner's right to substantive due process”
Procedural preferences
In Purvis v. Tice, she recommended staying the habeas case pending state PCRA proceedings; the parties stipulated to the stay, and the district judge adopted her recommendation.
“the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Carlos recommending the instant matter be stayed pending the completion of Petitioner’s state PCRA proceedings, and upon stipulation of the parties agreeing to stay this matter pending the outcome of Petitioner’s state PCRA proceedings, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED; 2. Petitioner’s request for a stay (Doc. No. 61) is GRANTED;”
In a habeas case, Magistrate Judge Carlos recommended dismissal of an untimely petition; the district court dismissed the petition with prejudice as time-barred.
“the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Carlos dated February 7, 2025 ... The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for Writ of Habeas Corpus submitted by pro se petitioner is DIMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as untimely.”
In a discovery dispute, the judge ordered production, depositions, and a proposed fee payment after repeated noncompliance, but declined to strike the defendant’s answer at that stage.
“the Court does not believe it is appropriate to impose a sanction that is tantamount to default judgment.”
Cautions
In one habeas case, the district judge adopted Judge Carlos’s recommendation after reviewing the petitioner’s objections. The final order denied the petition with prejudice. This is one example of an adopted recommendation, not a measure of how often objections succeed.
“The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“after careful review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Carlos (Doc. No. 17), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. The Plaintiff's Request for Review is DENIED, and the final order of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.”
“the Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’) issued by Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Carlos on August 26, 2025, ECF No. 19, which concluded that the Parole Board's decision to deny Petitioner parole was neither arbitrary nor constitutionally impermissible and did not violate Petitioner's right to substantive due process ... The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. ... The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is DENIED and DISMISSED.”
“dismisses Burnett’s claims with prejudice and without an evidentiary hearing.”
“the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Carlos recommending the instant matter be stayed pending the completion of Petitioner’s state PCRA proceedings, and upon stipulation of the parties agreeing to stay this matter pending the outcome of Petitioner’s state PCRA proceedings, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED; 2. Petitioner’s request for a stay (Doc. No. 61) is GRANTED; 3. The instant matter is STAYED pending completion of Petitioner’s state PCRA proceedings;”
“upon consideration of Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for Writ of Habeas Corpus submitted by pro se petitioner and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Carlos dated February 7, 2025 ... The Report and Recommendation ... is APPROVED and ADOPTED. ... The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for Writ of Habeas Corpus submitted by pro se petitioner is DIMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as untimely.”
“Plaintiff Michelle R.Q.'s request for review is GRANTED. ... the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for an immediate award of benefits”
“The Plaintiff's Request for Review is DENIED, and the final order of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED”
“the Commissioner's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. ... this matter is DISMISSED as untimely filed.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Count I, Count IV, Count VIII, and Count XI.”
“1. The Report and Recommendation (DI 14) is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff’s request for review (DI 40) is DENIED, and the final order of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is Denied in-part and Granted in part.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, see Doc. No. 41, is GRANTED, and judgment is entered in Defendant’s favor.”
“The Court further holds that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition and production of documents by Mr. Trejo, see Doc. No. 1, Civ. Action No. 24-2127; Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer the civil action to the arbitration program, see Doc. No. 50, and Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint, see Doc. No. 55, are hereby DENIED.”
“Having granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer the civil action to the arbitration program, see Doc. No. 50, is hereby denied as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Judge Carlos handles referred habeas petitions and Social Security appeals, in which she issues recommendations for a district judge, as well as civil cases in which the parties consent to her entering a final judgment.
- The directly assigned matters reviewed through June 2026 were predominantly Social Security appeals filed in 2025 and 2026, and all remained pending.
- That sample therefore does not yet support case-duration or motion-to-ruling figures.
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 | 4 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 29 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown), not for Judge Carlos: 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 | 5,730 | 5.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,952 | 3.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,834 | 4.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 898 | 10 months |
| Closed during trial | 46 | 17.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 5,730 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,200 | 4.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,595 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 5,221 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 5,245 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 4,686 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,374 | 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 Carlos with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Carlos, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Carlos's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace