Jeremy Daniel Kernodle
How Judge Kernodle rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kernodle
Jeremy Daniel Kernodle is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Kernodle received a commission on November 2, 2018.
Judge Kernodle's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kernodle, 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 JDK-7-1 Disclosure Statements ↗
- Patent Scheduling Order ↗
- Standard Scheduling Order ↗
- Defendant's Waiver Before Sentencing Hearing ↗
- Sample Trial Witness List ↗
- Sample Exhibit List ↗
- Sample Pre-Trial Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
At a first appearance in a civil or miscellaneous case, file a standalone certificate of interested persons.
“At the time of a party’s first appearance in any civil or miscellaneous action assigned to the undersigned (including following removal), the party must file as a standalone docket entry a signed certificate of interested persons that contains:”
Filing
Update the interested-persons certificate within ten business days of a change.
“A party must supplement its certificate of interested persons within ten business days of any changes to the information filed.”
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 Kernodle decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Adams, after the plaintiff filed no objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, Kernodle reviewed the findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and the legal conclusions for whether they were contrary to law, then adopted the recommendation.
“Here, Plaintiff has not filed objections. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law.”
In a removed prisoner suit, he denied the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional challenge but granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and dismissed the federal Section 1983 claims with prejudice.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED. In all other respects, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED, with prejudice”
In the Standley bankruptcy appeal, Kernodle found that the appellant had not identified an affirmative defense established at trial.
“Jason fails to identify an affirmative defense that he established at trial.”
In one Social Security appeal, the judge identified the wrong medical-opinion regulation in the magistrate’s recommendation, applied the proper older standard himself, and affirmed because the result was unchanged.
“the same outcome results from applying the proper standard under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 32).”
“The Court GRANTS-in-part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 35), enters judgment for Plaintiffs on on Counts II and IV, and SETS ASIDE AND VACATES the 2024 Final Determination.”
“The Court GRANTS-in-part Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 39) and DISMISSES Counts I and III.”
“ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Docket No. 10), is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED. In all other respects, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
“DENIES Defendant Oputy's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 28) and Defendants Bradley, Wallace, and Lambo's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 27).”
“Frontier's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 140) is DENIED.”
“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 70) and GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 72). Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (Docket No. 29) be ADOPTED and that Dr. Shrode's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 23) be DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant Paul W. Shrode's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 60) is GRANTED. The Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Shrode with prejudice.”
“The Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants Rhonda Dears, William George, Robert Gutierrez, Shean Handrick, Sharon Littlefield, and Gerald Singleton and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against them without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant Turner's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 65), and the claims against Defendant Turner are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“ORDERED that Defendant Michael Sizemore's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 45) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Michael Sizemore are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant Yitta's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 48) and DISMISSES Plaintiff's medical indifference claim against Defendant Yitta with prejudice.”
“the Court grants Plaintiff's motion and denies FinCEN's cross-motion”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 147 days (N = 11).
Kernodle's Tyler Division docket is weighted toward prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, along with consumer-protection, wage-and-hour, employment-discrimination, criminal, patent, administrative-law, and constitutional cases. Many prisoner matters are referred to magistrate judges.
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 | 1 |
| 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 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 Kernodle: 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 Kernodle with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kernodle, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kernodle's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace