Aileen Goldman Durrett
How Judge Durrett rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Durrett
Aileen Goldman Durrett is a United States Magistrate Judge in the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas. She took office in June 2022 and teaches at Baylor Law School.
Judge Durrett's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Durrett'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 Durrett decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Klein v. United States, Goldman Durrett recommended denying a section 2255 motion filed more than four years after the limitations deadline. She found that the movant's lack of legal training and unfamiliarity with the process did not justify equitable tolling.
“proceeding pro se, illiteracy, deafness, lack of legal training, and unfamiliarity with the legal process do not constitute extraordinary circumstances. ... Equity is not intended for those who sleep on their rights.”
In Parson v. Mattress Depot, Durrett recommended denying the plaintiff’s default-judgment motion without prejudice because the plaintiff had not first obtained the clerk’s entry of default. Adoption of the recommendation is unverified.
“As a prerequisite to filing a Motion for Default Judgment, Plaintiff must follow the procedure outlined above. That is, request the clerk's entry of default, obtain the clerk's entry of default, and then file a motion for default judgment.”
In Hammons v. Franklin, Magistrate Judge Goldman Durrett recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after the prisoner failed to pay the initial partial filing fee despite two extensions.
“In this case, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's orders. Therefore, the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is recommended the above-styled motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 be denied and this case be dismissed with prejudice. It is further recommended a certificate of appealability be denied.”
“It is therefore recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).”
“the court recommends that Defendants' Original Answer (Dkt. #7) be STRICKEN from the record and that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. #22) be DENIED without prejudice.”
Competency determination referred to the magistrate judge under 18 U.S.C. 4241 and 4247. After a hearing, she recommended finding the defendant competent to stand trial because he understood the nature and consequences of the proceedings and could assist in his defense. The district judge adopted the recommendation without objection.
“the court recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. #9) should be GRANTED and that Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal (Dkt. #1) and Plaintiffs' Complaint (Dkt. #3) should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. #5) and Plaintiffs' Motion to E-File (Dkt. #11) should be DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the court recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, with Brief (Dkt. #23) be GRANTED IN PART. The court further recommends that this case be ABATED pending the resolution of Cause No. CJ-2020-5706 filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.”
“the court recommends that Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #25) be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant should be granted summary judgement on all of Plaintiffs' claims related to damages to the pool, trees, shrubs, and landscaping; Defendant should be denied summary judgment as to the remainder of Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims; Defendant should be granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims of violations of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and the Texas Insurance Code §§ 541.060 and 541.151; and Defendant should be granted summary judgment on Texas Insurance Code § 542.055 and denied summary judgment on Texas Insurance Code §§ 542.056 and 542.058.”
“the court recommends that Equifax's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support (Dkt. #55) be GRANTED and Reyes' claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The court further recommends the Government's motion to dismiss allegations 4 and 5 in the Petition be granted.”
“the Government moved to dismiss allegation (2). Defendant entered a plea of true to allegation (1) of the Petition. ... The court further recommends that allegation (2) be dismissed.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner's construed motion for default judgment (Dkt. #45) is DENIED.”
“The court further recommends that the court grant the Government's motion to dismiss allegations 1 and 2.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 350 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 302 days (N = 3).
The sampled caseload includes civil-rights, habeas, Social Security, criminal pretrial, and competency matters, together with consent cases she decides directly.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
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 Eastern District of Texas, not for Judge Durrett: 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 | 2,854 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,222 | 5.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,581 | 9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 15 | 26 months |
| Closed during trial | 36 | 24.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,854 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,345 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,003 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,968 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,122 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,956 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,972 | 8.6 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 Durrett with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Durrett, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Durrett's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace