Diana Song Quiroga
How Judge Quiroga decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In civil asset forfeiture she will recommend a default judgment and final order of forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6) once the Government has followed the notice/claim procedure and no claimant appears -- and her recommendations in these cases are adopted in whole on clear-error review. A would-be claimant to seized currency must file a verified claim and answer on time or the property is forfeited by default.
“Judge Song Quiroga recommends that the Court grant the Government's Motion for Default Judgement and Entry of Final Order of Forfeiture. ... ADOPTED IN WHOLE. ... The Defendant currency is forfeited to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6).”
She applies the Section 1983 limitations and Rule 15(c) relation-back rules strictly: the two-year Texas personal-injury period governs, accrual runs from when the plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the injury, and a brand-new lawsuit naming a different defendant does NOT relate back to a prior, separate, dismissed suit. A plaintiff who lets the clock run while sitting on information identifying the proper defendant loses on limitations.
“Characterizing a new lawsuit naming a different defendant as an 'amendment' to a pleading such that Rule 15(c) applies is 'fanciful at best.' ... the statute of limitations would have expired on October 10, 2016, but Mr. Hernandez did not file his second complaint until December 21, 2016.”
Procedural preferences
She construes pro se filings liberally (recharacterizing a mislabeled 'First Step Act incentives' motion as a 3582(c)(1)(A) sentence-reduction motion) but still applies the governing legal limits rigorously -- so liberal construction gets a pro se litigant a fair reading, not a favorable outcome where the statute does not reach the claim. To preserve review of her recommendation, parties must file specific written objections within 14 days under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) / Rule 72(b); otherwise the district judge reviews only for clear/plain error.
“Construed liberally, Petitioner's Motion (Dkt. No. 15) appears to be a Motion for Reduced Sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). ... a 922(g) firearm conviction is not a 'covered offense' under the FSA.”
Cautions
A First Step Act / compassionate-release motion built on a non-drug conviction will be recommended for denial: only offenses whose penalties were modified by sections 2-3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 are 'covered,' so a 18 U.S.C. 922(g) firearm conviction does not qualify, and a movant must also show exhaustion of BOP administrative remedies and extraordinary/compelling reasons.
“Petitioner is not entitled to a sentence reduction as his 18 U.S.C. 922(g) firearm conviction is not a covered offense under the FSA and he has provided no 'extraordinary' or 'compelling' reasons for his release.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“In her report and recommendation, Judge Song Quiroga recommends that the Court grant the Government's Motion for Default Judgement and Entry of Final Order of Forfeiture. ... the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is hereby ADOPTED IN WHOLE. Accordingly, the Government's Motion for Default Judgement against $275,905.00 United States Currency (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED. The Defendant currency is forfeited to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6). [adopted Diana Saldana, 2025-08-26]”
“In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the Motion for Default Judgment and enter an order of forfeiture of the seized currency. ... the Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 21), is hereby ADOPTED IN WHOLE. The Government's Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Final Order of Forfeiture against $98,723.00 in United States Currency, (Dkt. 19), is hereby GRANTED. [adopted Diana Saldana, 2026-04-17]”
“United States Magistrate Judge Diana Song Quiroga issued a Report and Recommendation ... which advises the Court to grant the Commissioner's Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand (Dkt. No. 17). ... the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation ... The Commissioner's Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED, judgment is ENTERED in Plaintiff's favor, and this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings. [adopted Marina Garcia Marmolejo, 2020-04-30]”
“the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 21) be GRANTED on the grounds that the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff's claim. ... the Court accordingly RECOMMENDS that White's motion for summary judgment be GRANTED and that this action be DISMISSED.”
“Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for This Court's Acknowledgement that Petitioner Qualifies for the First Step Act Incentives. (Dkt. No. 15.) The Court recommends that Petitioner's Motion be denied. ... The Court therefore RECOMMENDS that Petitioner's Motion (Dkt. No. 15) be DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court, after an independent and de novo review of the record, GRANT the Defendant's Opposed Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 16).”
“Accordingly, the interests of justice dictate that Plaintiff's complaint be heard in the venue where the alleged violations occurred. Accordingly, the undersigned Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Judge ORDER the Clerk of the Court to TRANSFER this case to the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a), and to terminate all pending motions.”
“Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows: 1. The civil rights complaint filed by William M. Phillips be DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. No. 1) be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.”
“For the above reasons, the undersigned concludes and thus RECOMMENDS that the Joint Motion for Approval of Minor Settlement, Dkt. No. 16, should be GRANTED and that the settlement as to G.I. should be APPROVED.”
“The Court finds that Defendant Burlington Coat Factory of Texas, Inc.'s Opposed Motion to Abate Ruling on Motion to Remand and Request for Leave to Conduct Diversity Discovery. (Dkt. No. 3) should be GRANTED and that Plaintiff's Opposed Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 2) be ABATED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 62, be DENIED.”
Put Judge Quiroga's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Quiroga actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Quiroga's own signed orders and cites them.