Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
How Judge Perez-Montes rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Perez-Montes
Joseph H. L. Perez-Montes is a United States magistrate judge for the Western District of Louisiana. Appointed to the full-time position in 2015, the judge serves in the Alexandria Division.
Judge Perez-Montes's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Perez-Montes, 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.
- Magistrate Judge Joseph H. L. Perez-Montes ↗
- Rule 26(f) Case Management Report ↗
- Exhibit List Form ↗
- Witness List Form ↗
- Pretrial Stipulations ↗
Key rules
Filing
For his consent cases, email completed consent forms to the court’s consent mailbox; do not file them in the record.
“Completed consent forms shall be e-mailed to: [email protected] and are NOT to be filed into the record by the parties.”
Filing
Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes does not require courtesy copies.
“Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes does not require courtesy copies.”
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).
- General Order 0001-2025: Procedures for Access and Management of Sealed or Restricted Documents ↗
- General Order 0001-2024: Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- SO 1.74 Service and Scheduling of Immigration Habeas Cases ↗
- SO 1.75 Regarding Third-Party Litigation Funding ↗
How Judge Perez-Montes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Batiste's pay-discrimination case, Perez-Montes found that the proposed higher-paid comparators had different supervisors or duties and did not satisfy the applicable nearly-identical standard.
“Batiste has failed to show the two white employees she alleges were better-paid than she were 'nearly identical' to her... Because Chenevert had a different supervisor than Batiste and different job duties, they are not 'nearly identical.' Therefore, Chenevert is not a valid comparator.”
In Aultman v. St. Francis Medical Center, Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes recommended denying remand. He found the nondiverse hospital improperly joined because the plaintiffs had not exhausted Louisiana’s medical review panel process before suing; later amendments did not change jurisdiction at removal. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
“It is clear that 'a non-diverse defendant is improperly joined if the plaintiff fails to exhaust his claims before filing suit.'... Post-removal events -- including amendments -- generally do not justify remand.”
In Pineda-Parada v. Rice, Perez-Montes recommended habeas relief because the government continued detaining the petitioner while an unrevoked grant of deferred action deferred his removal through March 2030. The district judge adopted the recommendation and ordered release.
“Although deferred action confers no immigration status, the Government may not continue detaining Pineda-Parada while USCIS simultaneously exercises its discretion to defer his removal through March 11, 2030.”
In Sebghatullah, he recommended release despite the existence of Afghan travel papers because the government had no replacement flight and said Afghanistan was not accepting repatriation documents. A travel document alone did not establish reasonably foreseeable removal.
“nearly two months later ICE remains unable to schedule another flight.”
Procedural preferences
In Aultman, Perez-Montes recommended denying the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the complaint's allegations, though barely sufficient, supported a reasonable inference of liability. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
“The reasonable inferences which may be drawn from Plaintiffs' Petition are sufficient -- although perhaps barely sufficient -- to survive the Motion to Dismiss.”
In Batiste's discrimination case, Perez-Montes declined to consider the plaintiff's secondhand account of a witness's statements as summary-judgment evidence because it was hearsay.
“Batiste's recounting of Lachney's testimony is plainly hearsay evidence... This Court cannot consider hearsay evidence in an affidavit or deposition as summary judgment evidence... There is no competent direct evidence of discrimination before the Court.”
Cautions
In Burke's federal-prisoner suit, Perez-Montes recommended dismissing the complaint with prejudice at screening after finding that the asserted claim could not proceed under Bivens.
“Because Burke fails to state a claim under Bivens, IT IS RECOMMENDED that his Complaint be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Remand (Doc. 11) filed by Plaintiffs, Stacey and Heather Aultman, be DENIED.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) filed by Defendants be DENIED.”
Sua sponte prisoner-screening recommendation under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. Perez-Montes recommended: 'Because Burke fails to state a claim under Bivens, IT IS RECOMMENDED that his Complaint be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A.' The recommendation did not address leave to amend. The pro se federal prisoner alleged that an officer slammed his fingers in a food-tray slot, although x-rays were negative. Applying Ziglar v. Abbasi and Egbert, Perez-Montes treated the Eighth Amendment theory as a new context beyond Carlson and found that the FTCA and the BOP Administrative Remedy Program counseled against extending Bivens. District Judge Drell adopted the recommendation.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 35) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Based on the foregoing, Couvillon's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) will be GRANTED and Batiste's action will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Because genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Hicks is entitled to qualified immunity and whether Hicks's use of force was excessive; IT IS RECOMMENDED that Hicks's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) be DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and Toms's appeal is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Jeansonne's appeal is DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Because Jeansonne has not identified any manifest error of fact or law, IT IS ORDERED that her Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 20) is DENIED.”
“Because Anderson was not involved in obtaining or executing the disputed arrest warrant, Melvin cannot state a viable claim against him. And because Melvin has failed to raise a genuine issue regarding whether Wyatt's (or the SPSDs') actions in executing the arrest warrant were objectively unreasonable, Wyatt and he SPSDs are entitled to qualified immunity. Melvin's remaining claims are either unsupported for purposes of summary judgment, or should be dismissed under qualified immunity.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Town's Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 7) is GRANTED. Hudson is ORDERED TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT within 30 days of the date of this Order.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Town of Woodworth's motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) be GRANTED as follows: Hudson's federal claim for punitive damages against the Town (only) should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (2) Hudson's state law claim for punitive damages should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and (3) Hudson's Eighth Amendment claim should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 472 days (N = 12).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 65 days (N = 10).
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 | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 10 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 19 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, not for Judge Perez-Montes: 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 | 1,541 | 13.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 287 | 8.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 832 | 13.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 398 | 16.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 27.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,541 | 13.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,194 | 16.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,966 | 10.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,186 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,330 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,064 | 11.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,190 | 11.5 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 Perez-Montes with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Perez-Montes, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Perez-Montes's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace