Thad Heartfield

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas district Retired 2022 · served 1995–2022 Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 18 signed orders read

Judge Heartfield no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Jones v. State
· 1995-07-26
Motion to proceed ifp (plaintiff) Granted

“is GRANTED. A Final Judgment will be entered separately.”

Nickerson v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
· 1995-08-03
Social security appeal (claimant) Denied

“the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services is AFFIRMED, and this case is DISMISSED.”

Lavergne v. Jefferson County
· 1995-12-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“defendant Jefferson County, Texas’ Motion For Summary Judgment is GRANTED”

Jacobs v. Port Neches Police Department
· 1996-01-03
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED and ADJUDGED that defendant Jefferson County Sheriffs Department is DISMISSED, without prejudice, as a party to this suit.”

Dugas v. Jefferson County
· 1996-06-21
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant Payne’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”

White v. Orange Auto Center
· 2000-06-05
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“defendants Orange Auto Center’s and Clay Higgins’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”

Voight v. R.L. Eldridge Construction Inc.
· 2006-02-08
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 46) is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss (Docket No. 47) is GRANTED.”

Von Drake v. United States
· 2006-06-02
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“ORDERED that plaintiffs action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Lavergne v. HCA Inc.
· 2006-08-31
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“‘Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment’ (Docket No. 18) is GRANTED.”

Sparks v. Reneau Publishing Inc.
· 2007-08-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doe. No. 29] is GRANTED and all claims against Defendant shall be dismissed.”

Motion for sanctions (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s Motion for Expenses Under Rule 37(c)(2) [Doc. No. 41] is GRANTED IN PART”

Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s Objections and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Evidence [Doc. No. 37] is OVERRULED and DENIED.”

Motion for leave to file (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs First Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Plaintiffs Case Specific Disclosures [Doe. No. 42] is GRANTED.”

Motion for leave to file (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Summary Judgment Evidence in Response to Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 48] is GRANTED.”

United States v. Walters
· 2007-11-01
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“defendant’s motion to suppress (Docket No. 28) is DENIED.”

Scott v. Pfizer Inc.
· 2008-02-21
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants Pfizer, Howmedica, and MTG’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Clerk’s doc. # 37] is GRANTED”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Plaintiffs claims for malice/fraud and misrepresentation, as set forth in Sections IX and X of his Amended Petition are dismissed, including the corresponding request for exemplary damages, with prejudice”

Motion for more definite statement (defendant) Moot / procedural

“is DENIED as MOOT with respect to the motion for a more definite statement”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

His docket mixed a substantial civil caseload (product liability, employment, ERISA, admiralty, Social Security) with a large prisoner/habeas volume routinely referred to the division's magistrate judges. Cases filed before his 1995 commission that appear under his name are inherited administrative reassignments and are excluded.

A historical record

Judge Heartfield no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.