Judith C. Herrera
How Judge Herrera rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Herrera
Judith C. Herrera is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Herrera received a commission on June 13, 2004. Judge Herrera assumed senior status on July 1, 2019.
Judge Herrera's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Herrera, 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.
Key rules
Conferences
Seek an extension of Herrera’s pretrial deadlines by written motion.
“Counsel must seek leave of Court in the form of a written motion to extend any pretrial deadlines.”
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 Herrera decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a removed state-law tort case, Judge Herrera held that the complaint’s references to federal constitutional amendments did not create federal question jurisdiction, and she remanded the case.
“Though Seay references the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, they alone do not create federal question jurisdiction.”
Procedural preferences
In Neri, Judge Herrera enforced Rule 60(b)(3)'s one-year limit and required clear and convincing proof of egregious, intentional corruption before treating alleged nondisclosure as fraud on the court.
“Simply, Neri has not proven that Defendants or prior defense counsel perpetuated fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the forgoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss FMLA Claims is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Count V of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Imara Guerrero’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 38] is hereby GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 10] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendant Deputy Eby’s Motion To Dismiss [Doc. 60] is GRANTED”
“the Motion To Dismiss filed by Defendants Garcia, Ojeda, and Saenz [Doc. 62] is GRANTED”
“Defendant Sheriff Cobos’s Motion To Dismiss [Doc. 64] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts III and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 32) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Padilla’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 189) is GRANTED and Count IX is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant Padilla’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim (Count IX) (ECF No. 118) is DENIED as MOOT because this Court has dismissed the claim on summary judgment.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Violation of his Weingarten Rights (Count VI and for Violation of the 14th Amendment (Count VII), filed January 12, 2018 (Doc. 50), is GRANTED”
“Defendant’s First Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims for Race Discrimination (Count I), filed on January 12, 2018 (Doc. 49), is GRANTED”
“Defendant’s Provisional Second Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims for Retaliation (Count III), Gender Discrimination (Count IV) and Hostile Work Environment (Count II/Harassment (Count V), filed January 16, 2018 (Doc. 52), is GRANTED.”
“the motion for summary judgment Defendants incorporated in their Martinez Report (Doc. 54) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Berkley V. Walker’s ‘Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum of Law in Support’ (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Presbyterian’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Givens’s claims is GRANTED; (2) Defendant Presbyterian’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Martinez’s claims is DENIED”
“Defendant ARAMARK’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Givens’s claims is GRANTED; and (2) Defendant ARAMARK’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Martinez’s claims is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 330 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 222.5 days (N = 6).
Senior Judge Herrera continues to receive new cases in Albuquerque. The sampled caseload includes Federal Tort Claims Act motor-vehicle and personal-injury suits, prisoner motions to vacate, diversity insurance and contract disputes, fraud and fiduciary-duty cases, FMLA and civil-rights matters, and criminal cases. 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 | 10 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 10 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 9 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 7 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 6 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 10 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 13 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 8 | 9 |
| Sep 2021 | 12 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 12 | 9 |
| Sep 2020 | 12 | 10 |
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 Herrera: 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 Herrera with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Herrera, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Herrera's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace