Christine L. Stetson
How Judge Stetson rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Stetson
Christine L. Stetson is a United States Magistrate Judge serving the Beaumont and Lufkin Divisions of the Eastern District of Texas. She took office in August 2021 after nearly three decades of civil litigation practice in Texas.
Judge Stetson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Stetson, 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.
- Standing Order for Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling Order JPTO and Materials ↗
- Social Security Standing Order ↗
- Judge Specific Requirements ↗
Key rules
Filing
In a Social Security appeal, the brief must state the exact review issues in separate numbered paragraphs.
“a. A statement of the exact issues presented for review, set forth in separate numbered paragraphs.”
Filing
Mail a copy of any electronic filing over 50 pages to Stetson’s Beaumont chambers.
“The filing party should furnish a copy to the court of any electronically filed document that exceeds 50 pages. The copy should be mailed to 300 Willow, Suite 234, Beaumont, Texas, 77701.”
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.”
Conferences
Submit a proposed scheduling order with the joint conference report using business day deadlines.
“the parties should attempt to agree on deadlines for completion of pretrial matters and submit a proposed scheduling order with the joint conference report, using deadlines that are business days consistent with the bolded instructions on the sample scheduling order form.”
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 Stetson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment suit, Magistrate Judge Stetson recommended summary judgment for the defendants after finding that the prisoner had not shown a violation of his clearly established rights.
“Because Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants Arellano, Aileru, Redus, Rodriguez, Oneal, or Turner violated his clearly-established rights under the Eighth Amendment, they are entitled to qualified immunity.”
In Alvarez v. Warden, FCI Beaumont Medium, she advised the parties that failure to object to her recommendation could bar de novo review and later appellate review except for plain error.
“A party's failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district judge of proposed findings and recommendations ... and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error”
In Sarker’s immigration-petition processing suit, Magistrate Judge Stetson found venue improper in the Eastern District of Texas after the plaintiff pleaded a current Garland residence. She concluded that transfer to the Northern District served the interest of justice.
“Here, the court finds that the interests of justice warrant transfer to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas and will enter an appropriate order so providing.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted, and the claims against Defendants Arellano, Aileru, Redus, Rodriguez, Oneal, and Turner should be dismissed with prejudice.”
“This petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed.”
“Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted and this petition for writ of habeas corpus denied pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.”
“the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. A final judgment shall be entered dismissing this lawsuit.”
“the report of the magistrate judge (#46) is ADOPTED. The motion to dismiss (#39) is GRANTED. A final judgment shall be entered dismissing this lawsuit.”
“The magistrate judge recommends granting Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #11] and dismissing the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).”
In a pro se prisoner Section 1983 civil-rights action, Judge Stetson recommended sua sponte dismissal for want of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); the district judge adopted the recommendation.
A pro se in forma pauperis complaint alleged that telecommunications companies had been turned into 'military operations' weaponizing the public. Judge Stetson recommended sua sponte dismissal as frivolous on initial screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); the district judge adopted the recommendation and dismissed with prejudice.
“Defendant's ‘Unopposed Motion to Remand for further Administrative Proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g)’ (doc. #23) should be granted. The Commissioner's decision should be reversed, and this action remanded for further administrative proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four. The Administrative Law Judge should offer the Plaintiff a new de novo administrative hearing.”
“The undersigned finds that the administrative law judge's decision lacks reversible error and is supported by substantial evidence, and therefore recommends affirming the decision denying benefits.”
“The undersigned finds that the administrative law judge's decision lacks reversible error and is supported by substantial evidence, and therefore recommends affirming the decision denying benefits.”
“The undersigned finds that the administrative law judge's decision lacks reversible error and is supported by substantial evidence, and therefore recommends affirming the decision denying benefits.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Stetson's consent and directly assigned docket includes Social Security disability appeals, insurance coverage and bad-faith disputes, personal-injury matters, commercial cases, and occasional prisoner civil-rights litigation. She also issues recommendations in referred prisoner civil-rights, federal habeas, and initial screening matters.
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 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
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 Stetson: 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 Stetson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Stetson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Stetson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace