David Herrera Urias
How Judge Urias rules, drawn from 55 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Urias
David Herrera Urias is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Urias received a commission on January 14, 2022.
Judge Urias's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Urias's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Urias decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Price, evidence that the person tased was distant, unarmed, and not threatening officers kept an excessive force claim alive against qualified immunity at summary judgment.
“At the time of the tasing, Plaintiff was 25 feet away from Defendant Whitten and just before being tased had his hands above his head.”
In Boudieu, Herrera Urias allowed limited jurisdictional discovery where the plaintiff explained which facts needed development and how deciding without them would cause prejudice. The parties were to brief jurisdiction again afterward.
“Plaintiff has adequately conveyed the necessity for a more comprehensive presentation of the facts and has established that the absence of such factual development would result in prejudice to the Plaintiff.”
Procedural preferences
In Mendibaev, Herrera Urias ordered an immigration custody hearing after balancing the petitioner’s liberty interest, the risk of error, and the burden of a hearing. He left the petitioner with the burden of showing that release on bond was warranted.
“the Due Process Clause entitles Petitioner to an opportunity to seek release on bond at a custody redetermination hearing.”
Cautions
In Warner, Herrera Urias suppressed evidence from an unlawful seizure after rejecting an inevitable discovery theory built on assumptions about what officers might later have learned and done.
“The Government’s request to apply the inevitable discovery doctrine is based on speculative assumptions of inevitably, which is insufficient for the exception to apply.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Qualified Immunity and Other Grounds (Doc. 80) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is therefore GRANTED.”
“Defendant Fanton Logistics, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Supporting Memorandum Brief (Doc. 46) is DENIED.”
“Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 3) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ... the Court now dismisses Count II and IV of Plaintiff's complaint because those claims are time barred. The Court will not dismiss the other five Counts of Plaintiff's Complaint.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8). Counts four and five of Plaintiff's Complaint are now dismissed without prejudice.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Based in Part on Qualified Immunity, Doc. 30, is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. ... genuine issues of disputed fact exist that 1) preclude summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's Sec.1983 claims for excessive force and failure to warn before using deadly force, and 2) preclude summary judgment on Plaintiff's state law claim for battery. Defendant, however, is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant used deadly force after he was subdued.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Doc. 24) is GRANTED, and that Plaintiffs' accompanying request for attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED. ... IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe County, State of New Mexico.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 7) is GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's accompanying request for attorney's fees is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe County, State of New Mexico.”
“the Board of Education of Alamogordo Public School District #1, Alamogordo Public Schools, Jerrett Perry and Colleen Tagle's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) ... [is] DENIED.”
“Kathryn Hutchinson's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Due Process Claim (Doc. 55) [is] DENIED.”
“Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 25] is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 36). ... the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to seize Defendant, nor did they have any other lawful basis to do so. The Government has failed to meet its burden to show that of the seizure was justified.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 12) is GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's accompanying request for attorney fees and costs is GRANTED. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe County, State of New Mexico.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 176 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 153 days (N = 16).
- Judge Urias sits in Albuquerque.
- The sampled caseload is predominantly criminal, including illegal-reentry, drug, firearms, and Navajo Nation Major Crimes Act prosecutions, with civil-rights actions involving law enforcement and prison conditions, removed auto and insurance disputes, consumer-credit cases, habeas petitions, and Social Security appeals.
- This describes caseload composition, not motion outcomes.
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 | 19 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 16 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 16 |
| Mar 2024 | 10 | 17 |
| Sep 2023 | 18 | 18 |
| Mar 2023 | 51 | 15 |
| Sep 2022 | 58 | 15 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 13 |
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 New Mexico, not for Judge Urias: 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 | 908 | 8.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 150 | 4.1 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 511 | 7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 242 | 13.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 5 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 908 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 918 | 8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 835 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 973 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 909 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 957 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 965 | 9.6 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 Urias with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Urias, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Urias's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace