Robert C. Brack
How Judge Brack rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brack
Robert C. Brack is a senior judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Appointed by President George W. Bush, he received his commission on July 15, 2003, and took senior status on July 25, 2018. He previously served as a state district judge in New Mexico.
Judge Brack's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Brack, 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 Brack’s civil pretrial deadlines by written motion.
“Counsel must seek leave of the Court in the form of a written motion to extend any pretrial deadline.”
Trial
In a criminal trial before Brack, notify the court of audiovisual equipment needs at least 14 days before trial.
“Counsel shall notify the Court at least 14 days before trial if they require audio-visual or other special equipment.”
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 Brack decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Atencio, specific evidence about a reprimand and suspension kept FMLA claims alive at summary judgment.
“Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of fact regarding his December 2010 reprimand and February 2011 suspension constituting illegal retaliation or interference under FMLA.”
Procedural preferences
In the retirement board case, an objectively reasonable removal argument defeated the request for fees despite remand.
“Under these circumstances, Deutsche and DBAH had an objectively reasonable basis for removing this case. Each party should bear its own costs and fees.”
In Ombe, the court denied an appeal-extension motion filed on July 10 after the July 8 deadline for seeking extra time.
“The 30-day deadline to file a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal was July 8, 2026. Plaintiff did not file his Motion for an extension of time until July 10, 2026.”
Cautions
In Romero, remand followed from a missing consent even though the removing party tried to find the other defendant.
“If fewer than all defendants consent to removal, however, removal is not appropriate, regardless of the fact that the removing defendant tried its best to obtain consent.”
In B.K., the court would not decide an IDEA summary judgment motion without the full administrative record.
“Without a full record of the administrative proceedings, the Court is unable, under the statute, to grant the relief that Defendants seek.”
In Trejo, a protective order preventing lawful return to an RV defeated the claimed expectation of privacy in a backpack left inside.
“Once the protective order was in place, Defendant could no longer legally return to the RV to access his backpack, and thus any expectation of privacy in the contents of the backpack is objectively unreasonable.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Ms. Soto’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Defendant Rivas’ Motion to Dismiss Counts IV and V (Doc. 11), filed on January 18, 2011; and Defendant Rivas’ Motion to Dismiss Under the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity (Doc. 20), filed on February 5, 2011, are GRANTED.”
“Defendant Rivas’ Motion to Dismiss Under the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity (Doc. 20), filed on February 5, 2011, are GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Convert Defendant Rivas’ Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18), filed on February 2, 2011; Defendant Rivas’ Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Doc. 34), filed on March 3, 2011; and Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (Doc. 35), filed on March 3, 2011, are DENIED.”
“Defendant Rivas’ Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Doc. 34), filed on March 3, 2011; and Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (Doc. 35), filed on March 3, 2011, are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (Doc. 35), filed on March 3, 2011, are DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Conciliate in Good Faith (Doc. 302) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Denial of Defendants’ Unauthorized Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 303) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants‟ Motion to Strike Witnesses Designated on January 4, 2014 and Damages Asserted by the EEOC in its Fifth Supplemental Disclosures (Doc. 319) is DENIED.”
“NMERB’s Motion for Remand and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. 6), filed on January 27, 2012, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Plaintiffs’Motion to Remand is granted.”
“Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs is denied.”
“Defendants‟ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”
“Ms. Zozaya’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. 14) is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Purported Class Action Claims, (Docs. 31 and 38), are GRANTED.”
“For the reasons given, the Court grants Mr. Knee’s motion to remand (Doc. 9)”
“Court denies Mr. Knee’s request for fees.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 133) is GRANTED IN PART as to the federal claims (Counts II and IV), and these two claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Szuszalski’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 134) is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Loss of Consortium claim (Count V) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendants’ Motions in Limine (Docs. 131; 132) are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant Fields’s Motion to Change his Deposition (Doc. 152) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Mr. Lee’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) (Doc. 23) is GRANTED: Mr. Lee’s FLSA claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and his state-law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;”
“Wellbridge’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 24) is DENIED AS MOOT;”
“Mr. Lee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Reply (Doc. 26) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 348.0 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 6 days (N = 13).
The sampled matters include criminal, civil rights, contract, patent, habeas, and injury cases. The selected dockets describe case types encountered during this review, not the court’s overall caseload.
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 | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Brack: 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 Brack with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brack, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brack's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace