Kea W. Riggs
How Judge Riggs rules, drawn from 49 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Riggs
Kea Whetzal Riggs is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Riggs received a commission on December 31, 2019.
Judge Riggs's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Riggs, 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
Trial
In a criminal trial before Riggs, exchange and file witness and exhibit lists two weeks before trial.
“Counsel shall exchange and file with the Court witness and exhibit lists TWO (2) WEEKS prior to trial.”
Trial
In a civil trial before Riggs, file and exchange a proposed exhibit list three weeks before trial.
“Counsel shall file with the court and provide to opposing counsel, a proposed exhibit list THREE (3) WEEKS BEFORE TRIAL.”
Trial
For jury trials before Riggs, confer on proposed jury instructions and submit agreed instructions or legal grounds for each disagreement.
“FOR JURY TRIAL, PARTIES SHALL MEET AND CONFER BEFORE SUBMITTING PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS IN AN EFFORT TO DRAFT MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE INSTRUCTIONS. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS BEING IMPOSED. PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT A SET OF MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE JURY INSTRUCTIONS, OR BE PREPARED TO SUBMIT A LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OBJECTIONS TO EACH INSTRUCTION ON WHICH THEY DO NOT AGREE.”
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 Riggs decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In two February 2026 immigration-detention cases, the court held that noncitizens who had lived in the United States for years after entering without inspection were detained under the discretionary framework of Section 1226(a), and it ordered individualized bond hearings rather than mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A).
“The Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention pending a decision on whether he should be removed from the United States is governed by § 1226(a) as opposed to § 1225(b)(2)(A).”
Procedural preferences
In Allue Garcia v. Warden, Riggs denied the detainee's motion for immediate release without prejudice. Because the final removal order was only about a month old, she found the detention presumptively reasonable during the statutory removal period.
“Because the final removal order was entered about a month ago, Petitioner’s detention is presumptively reasonable under Section 1231 and Zadvydas, and the Motion for Immediate Release (Doc. 3) will be denied without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for Conversion and Unjust Enrichment (Doc. 70) is DENIED.”
“Defendant GEICO County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 53) is hereby GRANTED ... GEICO County Mutual Insurance Company is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
“Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Count II for Defendants Trujillo and Flores, and Count III for Defendants PISD Board of Education and Trujillo. ... DENIED AS MOOT with respect to Count I.”
“For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the motions to reassign filed in the six cases identified above.”
“For these reasons, the Court finds that there was no violation of Defendant's statutory, due process, or constitutional speedy trial rights. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 90) is hereby DENIED.”
“Defendant has not demonstrated any compelling circumstances warranting amending the Court's original order. The Court will therefore DENY Defendant's Motion to Amend (Doc. 37).”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the eight motions to dismiss (Docs. 10, 12, 23, 25, 26, 36, 46, 63) are GRANTED IN PART.”
“Therefore, the motion is denied as moot.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the following motions are DENIED AS MOOT: Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Putative Class Allegations (Doc. 7)”
“Defendant Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9)... DENIED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) is DENIED”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court will deny his Motion to Discharge Fees and Costs (Doc. 8).”
“Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 10, 11) are DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 109) is hereby DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 129 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 90 days (N = 7).
Judge Riggs sits in Albuquerque. The sampled caseload combines illegal-reentry, firearms, and drug prosecutions with prisoner and other civil-rights actions, diversity motor-vehicle and contract disputes, federal habeas petitions, and removed 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 | 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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 9 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 13 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 6 |
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 Riggs: 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 Riggs with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Riggs, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Riggs's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace