Roy Steven Payne
How Judge Payne rules, drawn from 48 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Payne
Roy S. Payne is a United States Magistrate Judge in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, where he has served since 2011. He previously served as a magistrate judge in the Western District of Louisiana and practiced law in Shreveport.
Judge Payne's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Payne, 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 Regarding Submission of Letter Briefs ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Mock Juries for Cases ↗
- Exemption Order Regarding Courtesy Paper Copies of Electronically-Filed Documents ↗
- Standing Order for Social Security ↗
- Protective Order ↗
- Docket Control Order - Patent ↗
- Discovery Order - Patent ↗
- Protective Order ↗
- Discovery Order ↗
- Docket Control Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Submit a required letter brief as an exhibit to a notice of compliance and omit attachments unless a case order directs otherwise.
“filed electronically by attaching the letter brief as an Exhibit to a Notice of Compliance referencing the order that directed the submission of the . letter brief. Said Notice must comply with all applicable local rules. Attached hereto is an exemplar of a Notice of Compliance. All letter briefs, unless specifically directed otherwise by a case-specific order, are to be submitted without attachments.”
Filing
Send Payne courtesy paper copies only on his specific request.
“courtesy paper copies shall only be filed when specifically requested by the undersigned.”
Filing
In Social Security appeals before Payne, 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.”
Trial
The court strongly discourages using mock jurors who live in the case’s division.
“the Court strongly discourages the parties from conducting mock jury trials, focus groups, or other similar studies in which any mock jurors or similar participants reside in the division where the case is pending.”
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 Payne decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a patent venue dispute, he denied transfer to California after crediting the plaintiff’s patent and licensing work in the Eastern District of Texas as a real connection to the suit.
“These activities occurred in the Eastern District of Texas and squarely involve ‘events that gave rise to this suit.’”
In a different patent case, he transferred the action to Massachusetts after finding that the defendant’s U.S. headquarters and most relevant evidence and witnesses were closer to that forum, while neither party had a meaningful Texas connection.
“The Court is persuaded that local interests favor transfer.”
Procedural preferences
In a patent suit involving a newly identified prior-art reference, he allowed Samsung to amend its invalidity contentions after finding good cause under the local patent rules.
“the Court concludes that Samsung has shown good cause to amend its invalidity contentions.”
In a patent fee dispute, he granted two defendants’ separately filed fee requests as to entitlement and directed a detailed accounting before fixing the award.
“Defendants have not provided the Court with the necessary evidence or stipulation to make that award.”
Cautions
In a patent expert-disclosure dispute, he declined to strike a late supplemental report because the opposing party’s late source-code production substantially justified the delay and the four-factor analysis showed harmlessness.
“Genband’s failure to meet the disclosure deadline was substantially justified, given the late date of Metaswitch’s code production.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Traxcell's Motion.”
“ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss ... are GRANTED. ... ORDERED that My Health's complaints ... are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“ORDERED that Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 35) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the AUO Non-Infringement MSJ (Docket No. 252) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss in this second-filed action (Dkt. No. 52) be GRANTED.”
“Samsung has not shown this case to be exceptional, and therefore Samsung's Motion for Attorneys' Fees under § 285 (Dkt. No. 192) is DENIED.”
“Samsung's additional Motion for Entry of Bill of Costs (Dkt. No. 196) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Samsung's unopposed costs are taxable, but Samsung cannot recover any of the costs disputed by the parties.”
“After due consideration, the Court DENIES the Motion.”
“the Court finds that Defendants have failed to carry their burden to show that the Southern District of California is a clearly more convenient venue for this case. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 56) is DENIED.”
“After considering the evidence and weighing the pertinent factors, the Court finds that transfer is not warranted in this case.”
“For the following reasons, the Court holds SSL's disclosures are sufficient under the Local Rules and denies Cisco's requested relief.”
“The Court DENIES the Motion to the extent that it seeks to transfer this case to the Eastern District of North Carolina (‘E.D.N.C.’) under §1404.”
“The Court also recommends that Defendants' Motion be DENIED with respect to Prismaflex's arguments for dismissal based on a lack of personal jurisdiction under 12(b)(2), improper venue under 12(b)(3), and failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6).”
“The Court also DENIES the Motion to Strike.”
“the Court finds that Princess Cruise has failed to carry its burden of showing that the Central District of California is a clearly more convenient venue for this case. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Princess Cruise's Motion to Transfer to the Central District of California.”
“the Court finds that Defendant's Motion should be, and hereby is, GRANTED. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the above-captioned case is TRANSFERRED to the District of Massachusetts.”
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 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, not for Judge Payne: 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 Payne with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Payne, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Payne's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace