Brantley David Starr
How Judge Starr rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Starr
Brantley David Starr is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Starr received a commission on August 6, 2019.
Judge Starr's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Starr, 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.
Key rules
Filing
A judge's copy of an electronically filed document is currently not required.
“A judge’s copy of a document electronically filed is not required.”
Motions
Email a Word proposed order for every motion.
“All motions require a proposed order that must be emailed to [email protected] and must be in a Word format (not PDF).”
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).
- Special Order 19-2: Service, Access, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Miscellaneous Order 61-1: Restrictions on Electronic Filing of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Miscellaneous Order 61: Electronic Case Filing ↗
- Special Order 19-1: Second Amended Order Regarding Public Access to Certain Documents ↗
How Judge Starr decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Firehawk, he held that the Hague Service Convention did not apply because the defendant’s address was unknown under Article 1.
“Article 1 of the Convention states that it ‘shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known.’ ... As a result, the Convention does not apply.”
In Endure Industries, he denied a motion to dismiss after finding that the disputed issues were more appropriate for summary judgment.
“the Court finds that the points of dispute contained therein are more appropriate for resolution at the summary-judgment stage of this case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion.”
In Fredrickson, he held that qualified immunity remained a defense to the prisoner’s religious-freedom claim under then-current law.
“Therefore, the Court finds that qualified immunity is a defense to RFRA claims under the current state of the law.”
Procedural preferences
In Lymphedema Texas, he rejected a liability theory raised after discovery rather than in the pleadings.
“The Court cannot give Lymphedema Texas a fourth bite at the apple and encourage plaintiffs to sandbag their opponents until after discovery is over. ... It should have pled this theory. It didn't.”
In Ramachandran, he directed the parties to practice with candor and civility and described motions as a last resort.
“Going forward, the Court expects candor, civility, and compliance from the parties. ... The Court will not tolerate practices that ‘do not advance the resolution of the merits of a case.’ ... Motions should be a last resort.”
Cautions
In the Morenos’ bankruptcy appeal, he denied an emergency stay after finding that a constructive trust held the home’s equitable interest and the appellants had not shown irreparable injury.
“the Morenos have not suffered an irreparable injury because the trust has the equitable interest in the Aikman House.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Therefore, the Court DENIES Ramachandran's motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 133].”
“Therefore, the Court also DENIES the defendants' motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 134].”
“GRANTS IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for a Pre-Suit Injunction. [Doc. No. 5]. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' request for a pre-suit injunction.”
“The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Sanctions [Doc. No. 15]”
“the Court finds that the points of dispute contained therein are more appropriate for resolution at the summary-judgment stage of this case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion.”
“As a result, the Convention does not apply. ... Therefore, the Court DENIES Jones's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 18).”
“Jones has not shown this lawsuit constitutes retaliation nor has she demonstrated that suing someone who lacks stable housing is sanctionable conduct.”
“Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and GRANTS Garland's motion for summary judgment.”
“the Court GRANTS Blue Cross's motions for summary judgment and dismisses with prejudice the claims of Lymphedema Texas and Lymphedema America.”
Starr dismissed a pro se Section 1983 complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim, adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation after de novo review of the objections. The dismissal was with prejudice because the plaintiff had already filed two complaints plus a questionnaire, making further amendment futile; the in forma pauperis motion was moot. Quote: 'The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all of Jones' claims against all defendants.'
“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the defendants' motions for summary judgment.”
“the Court GRANTS Harper's motion for default judgment and CONFIRMS the Award.”
“the Court GRANTS defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 65]. By separate judgment, the Court will DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Li's claims against the defendants.”
“the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and DENIES Battle's motion for default judgment.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled cases provide a limited view of Starr's caseload rather than an authoritative baseline and include matters 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 | 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 |
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 Northern District of Texas, not for Judge Starr: 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 | 4,103 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 829 | 4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 3,228 | 6.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 11 | 16.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 35 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 4,103 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,648 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,808 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,698 | 56 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,094 | 19.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,294 | 13.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,367 | 6.9 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 Starr with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Starr, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Starr's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace