Bill Davis
How Judge Davis rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Davis
Bill Davis is a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, serving from the court’s Plano duty station. His appointment took effect September 1, 2024, following service as Deputy Solicitor General of Texas from 2019 to 2024. He earned degrees from Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
Judge Davis's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Davis, 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
Filing
Do not provide paper copies of electronic filings in Davis matters unless the court asks for them.
“In any matter pending before the Honorable Bill Davis, paper copies of electronically filed documents should not be provided unless specifically requested by the court.”
Filing
Put arguments in body text; Davis may deem a footnote argument forfeited.
“Judge Davis prefers footnote-free filings. Citations should appear in body text. Any argument presented in a footnote may be deemed forfeited.”
Motions
Request oral argument in a separate motion of at most 500 words by the reply deadline.
“Any attorney or pro se party who wishes to present oral argument on a motion should file a separate motion of no more than 500 words stating (a) why oral argument is warranted, (b) the amount of time required, and (c) whether the request for oral argument is opposed. Any motion requesting oral argument should be filed no later than the due date for the reply in support of the motion on which oral argument is requested.”
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 Davis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the cross-motions over insurance reimbursement, unresolved facts about performance and breach kept the defendant’s contract claim from being decided at summary judgment.
“In light of those fact questions, which go to whether Scafuro performed and whether Standard breached, Scafuro’s contract claim cannot be resolved at the summary-judgment stage.”
Procedural preferences
Filings should place citations in the body text and keep any oral-argument request in a separate short motion that explains why argument is warranted, how much time is needed, and whether the request is opposed.
“Judge Davis prefers footnote-free filings. Citations should appear in body text. Any argument presented in a footnote may be deemed forfeited.”
In a discovery dispute, he required a targeted supplementation while denying broader relief that the record did not support.
“The motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
Cautions
In one request to reopen detention, a short filing failed to identify newly discovered material evidence, and the defendant did not reply to the government’s response.
“His short motion does not identify newly discovered material evidence that would support reopening the question of his pretrial detention, and he did not file a reply to the government’s response.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is ORDERED that Vertical Bridge’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Within 7 days, the defendants must supplement their response to interrogatory number 20 with the name of any custodian of records or other person who provided the document or documents relied upon to answer the interrogatories and specify which interrogatory response or responses were based on the document or documents provided by that person. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
“1) the motion to quash the subpoena, Dkt. 71, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;”
“the motion to withdraw John D. Ormond as counsel for the defendants, Dkt. 40, is GRANTED;”
“It is ORDERED that Acima’s first motion to compel arbitration or dismiss, Dkt. 10, is DISMISSED as moot.”
“1) Acima’s second motion to compel arbitration or dismiss, Dkt. 15, be GRANTED to the extent it asks the court to compel the parties to arbitrate and DISMISSED to the extent it requests dismissal of Smith’s complaint;”
This consent civil case was dismissed after returned mail and failure to update an address. The order states: “It is ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” This court initiated the dismissal; no party motion is counted.
This consent civil case was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to pay the ordered initial partial filing fee. The order states: “It is ORDERED that the case is dismissed without prejudice.” The dismissal was vacated and the case reopened on July 27, 2026. This court initiated the dismissal; no party motion is counted.
This consent civil case was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis application. The order states: “It is ORDERED that the case is dismissed without prejudice.” This court initiated the dismissal; no party motion is counted.
“Trans Union’s motion for attorneys’ fees, Dkt. 296, is DENIED.”
“Standard’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 34, is GRANTED to the extent it seeks judgment on Scafuro’s requests for declaratory relief and DENIED to the extent it seeks judgment on Standard’s claims, Scafuro’s breach-of-contract claim, and Scafuro’s request for attorneys’ fees;”
“Scafuro’s motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 35, is GRANTED to the extent it seeks judgment on Standard’s claim for declaratory relief, which makes judgment in Scafuro’s favor appropriate on each of Standard’s remaining claims as well, and DENIED to the extent it seeks judgment based on the provision governing the timing of suit;”
“Le’s motion to reopen the question of pretrial detention, Dkt. 111, is It DENIED.”
“the first two of those motions, Dkts. 30, 36, are GRANTED in part, such that (a) the new deadline to serve the defendants who have not been served or appeared is 30 days from the day this order is docketed and (b) Brandon Elliott is authorized to serve those defendants via email or social media; 3) the same motions, Dkts. 30, 36, are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the extent they request service by publication or by the United States marshal;”
“the third motion, Dkt. 37, is STRUCK as duplicative;”
“the motion for expedited discovery, Dkt. 5, is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The targeted docket review located six post-appointment matters, including civil discovery, consumer, and consent prisoner cases. One consumer case provided two motion-to-ruling intervals. These targeted cases do not support a caseload mix or duration estimate.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 22 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 44 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 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 Davis: 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 Davis with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Davis, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Davis's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace