Katie Nicole Mitchell
How Judge Mitchell rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mitchell
K. Nicole Mitchell is a United States Magistrate Judge in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas. She joined the bench in August 2013 after clerking for District Judge Leonard Davis and practicing health care litigation.
Judge Mitchell's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Mitchell, 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.
- Practice Pointers ↗
- Trial ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Motions to Modify/Amend Docket Control Orders ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Motions for Extensions of Time to Answer ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Readiness for Status Conference ↗
- Exemption Order RE: Courtesy Paper Copies of Electronically-Filed Documents ↗
- Order Regarding Filing of Social Security Transcripts ↗
- Standing Order for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ↗
- Discovery Order ↗
- Protective Order ↗
- Docket Control Order ↗
- Protective Order ↗
- Discovery Order ↗
- Docket Control Order ↗
- Exhibit List ↗
- Witness List ↗
Key rules
Filing
Provide Mitchell courtesy copies only for Markman briefing and patent dispositive motions unless she requests them.
“courtesy paper copies shall only be filed for Markman briefings and dispositive motions in patent cases unless specifically requested by the undersigned.”
Motions
After Mitchell grants a docket-control amendment, refile the complete order with changed and unchanged deadlines.
“parties shall re-file a complete Docket Control Order in every instance where a motion to modify/amend a Docket Control Order is granted. The amended Docket Control Order shall incorporate the modified deadline(s) in addition to the deadlines that remain unchanged.”
Discovery
Work diligently to resolve discovery disputes before filing a discovery motion.
“The Court looks with disfavor on discovery motions, unless they are of substantial import and the parties have worked diligently to resolve them by agreement.”
Conferences
File a readiness notice within five days after the last defendant answers or moves to transfer or dismiss.
“The notice shall be filed within five days of the last remaining Defendant’s answer or motion in the case.”
Trial
Expect roughly ten to fifteen minutes for counsel to question the jury panel after the court’s voir dire.
“Counsel will then be permitted to examine the panel on issues pertaining to the case for approximately ten to fifteen minutes.”
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 Mitchell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a consent case brought by a former police officer, she let his Texas Whistleblower Act claim proceed after finding that the city’s removal waived its forum-immunity objection and that the record left a factual dispute about his report and termination.
“On this record, Defendant has not shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s TWA claim.”
In a Social Security appeal, she recommended affirmance because the administrative law judge explained why a consulting physician’s vague limitation opinion conflicted with examination findings and the broader medical record; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“Here, without using the specific terms ‘supportability’ and ‘consistency,’ the ALJ properly considered whether Dr. Phillips’ opinion was supported by objective medical evidence, whether he provided an explanation for his opinion and whether his opinion was consistent with the medical evidence in the record before he concluded that it was not persuasive.”
Procedural preferences
In a patent claim-construction opinion, she recommended denying an indefiniteness summary-judgment motion where the parties offered no new argument against an earlier construction.
“Because the Parties assert no new arguments in support of or in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment on this term, the Court declines to reconsider the prior ruling.”
Cautions
In the same police-officer employment case, she dismissed the federal First Amendment retaliation claim because the officer’s own account showed that his challenged report was prepared as part of his official investigative duties.
“These are all functions performed within the scope of Plaintiff’s duties as a police officer.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the constructions set forth below and RECOMMENDS DENYING the Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“The Report recommends granting-in-part and denying-in-part both motions.”
“the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 95) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.”
“DENIES Defendant Oputy’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 28)”
“DENIES Defendant Oputy’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 28) and Defendants Bradley, Wallace, and Lambo’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 27).”
“DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunctive relief (Docket No. 32).”
In a pro se prisoner Section 1983 suit, Mitchell's R&R recommended sua sponte dismissal with prejudice for purposes of in forma pauperis proceedings under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), and dismissal of claims against two judges as legally frivolous under Section 1915A because of absolute judicial immunity. The district judge adopted the R&R over the plaintiff's objections and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
In a pro se prisoner Section 1983 suit, Mitchell's R&R recommended sua sponte dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute because the plaintiff did not file an updated change of address and the report was returned undeliverable. No objections were filed, and District Judge Kernodle adopted the R&R.
“The court reverses the commissioner's final administrative decision and remands the matter to the commissioner for further administrative proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“The court affirms the Commissioner's final administrative decision and dismisses this action with prejudice.”
“Defendant's unopposed motion to reverse with remand and enter judgment (Doc. 12) is granted. Defendant's unfavorable final decision denying plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).”
“The court grants the motion to reverse with remand. The court reverses the commissioner's final administrative decision and remands the matter to the commissioner for further administrative proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“Movant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence is DISMISSED with prejudice. Movant is also denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte.”
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 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Mitchell: 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 Mitchell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mitchell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mitchell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace