Sean Daniel Jordan
How Judge Jordan rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jordan
Sean D. Jordan is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Jordan received a commission on August 20, 2019.
Judge Jordan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Jordan, 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 on Motions to Seal in Civil Cases ↗
- Protective Order Form ↗
- Joint Final Pretrial Order ↗
Key rules
Sealing
For civil seal requests, file a seal motion, a sealed unredacted copy, and a public redacted copy separately.
“A movant seeking leave to file materials under seal must file three documents, separately and in the following order:”
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 Jordan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Copeland and CoFour's case, neither plaintiff objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation within fourteen days. Judge Jordan reviewed the report for clear error, adopted it, and granted summary judgment for ManaMed.
“When no party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen days of service, the district court ‘need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.’”
In Copeland and CoFour's case, Judge Jordan denied a request to respond to summary judgment and amend the complaint after the magistrate judge had recommended dismissal. The plaintiffs had offered no adequate explanation for their delay.
“Seventy-five days after their deadline to respond, and only after the Magistrate Judge had already recommended dismissal of their claims, Copeland and CoFour seek relief. Under the circumstances, such a period of delay is unreasonable.”
In Akkineni's bankruptcy appeal, Judge Jordan denied the appeal because the appellant's brief failed to comply with Rule 8014 and did not explain the basis for relief. He held the self-represented appellant to the applicable bankruptcy appeal rules.
“acquires no greater rights than a litigant represented by a lawyer”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' objections, (Dkt. #38), are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. #10), is DENIED.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (Dkt. #19), is DENIED.”
“It is further ORDERED that Defendants' motion to transfer venue, (Dkt. #19), is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that North Texas Municipal Water District's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #22), is GRANTED. Plaintiff Carolyn Salzar's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #99), is GRANTED and that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #103), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants grant the permit that Plaintiff sought.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #99), is GRANTED and that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #103), is DENIED.”
“It is further ORDERED that Defendant ManaMed Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, and in the Alternative, for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Dkt. #57), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Charles Copeland and CoFour, LLC's claims against Defendant ManaMed, Inc. are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs Copeland and CoFour's ‘Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in Response to Report and Recommendation,’ (Dkt. #61), is DENIED.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant State Farm Lloyds's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #39), is GRANTED and each of Plaintiff's claims for violation of the Texas Insurance Code (save and except Plaintiff's claim under § 542.058) and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and violation of § 542.058 of the Texas Insurance Code shall proceed to trial.”
“Accordingly, the Motion (Dkt. #31) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Judgment, (Dkt. #138), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court awards Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $7,000,000 each, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and costs of court. But the Court awards prejudgment interest at a rate of $273.97 per day, rather than $275.97 per day.”
“Navient's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint or Strike Impermissible Claims, (Dkt. #123), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's defamation/libel claim, TCPA claim, and 'intrusion on seclusion' invasion of privacy claim. These claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... ECMC's Motion to Dismiss ... is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ... GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's defamation/libel claim ... DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Motions for Summary Judgment, (Dkts. #165, 185), are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants WinCo Foods, Carly Leibengood, and Brian Miller's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #35), is GRANTED and Plaintiff Bryan Gray's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“CHU de Quebec's Motion for Continuance of Trial Setting and Pre-Trial Deadlines, (Dkt. #114), is GRANTED, and Defendants' Motion for Continuance and to Extend Related Deadlines, (Dkt. #121), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Jordan's Sherman and Plano docket includes insurance and contract disputes, consumer and credit-reporting suits, Social Security appeals, employment and civil-rights cases, securities litigation, state-prisoner and immigration-detention habeas petitions, immigration mandamus, civil forfeiture, criminal cases, and patent litigation. Many civil 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 | 79 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 13 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 79 | 13 |
| Sep 2025 | 84 | 11 |
| Mar 2025 | 63 | 18 |
| Sep 2024 | 51 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 43 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 34 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 28 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 2 |
| 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 Jordan: 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 Jordan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jordan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jordan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace