David Herrera Urias

United States District Court for the District of New Mexico district Appointed by Joseph R. Biden (Democratic) 31 signed orders read

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Price v. Whitten
2:20-cv-01099-DHU-KRS
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Qualified Immunity and Other Grounds (Doc. 80) is DENIED.”

Soto v. Trejo
1:22-cv-00740-DHU-LF
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is therefore GRANTED.”

Van Winkle v. Fanton Logistics, Inc.
1:23-cv-00969-DHU-KRS
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant Fanton Logistics, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Supporting Memorandum Brief (Doc. 46) is DENIED.”

Sanchez v. Eddy County Board of Commissioners
2:23-cv-00345-DHU-GJF · 2024-03-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

White v. City of Hobbs, New Mexico
2:23-cv-01080-DHU-GJF · 2024-04-02
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Torgerson v. Starr
1:21-cv-00204-DHU-LF · 2024-03-29
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Salazar v. Board of Regents of the New Mexico Military Institute
1:20-cv-01029-DHU-KK · 2022-04-05
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“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.”

Roybal v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. (GMRI, Inc. d/b/a Olive Garden)
1:21-cv-01046-DHU-JFR · 2022-03-09
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“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.”

Hutchison v. Board of Education of Alamogordo Public School District #1
2:20-cv-01121-DHU-GJF · 2022-04-07
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“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.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Kathryn Hutchinson's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Due Process Claim (Doc. 55) [is] DENIED.”

We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Grisham
1:23-cv-00773-DHU-LF · 2023-10-11
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 25] is DENIED.”

United States v. Warner
1:24-cr-00088-DHU · 2025-10-27
Motion to suppress (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Magana v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (FCA US LLC)
1:22-cv-00379-DHU-KK · 2023-01-31
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“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: 164 days (N = 1).

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.

Put Judge Urias's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Urias actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Urias's own signed orders and cites them.