James Wesley Hendrix
How Judge Hendrix rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hendrix
James Wesley Hendrix is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Hendrix received a commission on August 8, 2019.
Judge Hendrix's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hendrix, 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.
- Judge Specific Requirements ↗
- Civil Scheduling Conference Order ↗
- Civil Scheduling Order ↗
- Criminal Trial Scheduling Order ↗
- Criminal Sentencing Scheduling Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
No judge's copy is required for electronically filed documents.
“Judge Hendrix does not require a judge's copy for documents filed by electronic means.”
Motions
Email a Word or WordPerfect proposed order for every motion.
“All motions require a proposed order that must be emailed to [email protected] and must be in a WordPerfect or 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 Hendrix decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Grodman v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Hendrix granted Texas Tech summary judgment on the resident’s Rehabilitation Act claims. He found that patient-safety mistakes supplied a legitimate reason for discipline and that the record did not create a genuine pretext dispute.
“no genuine dispute of material fact remains as to Grodman's claims under the Rehabilitation Act. Texas Tech is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court grants Texas Tech's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 44).”
Procedural preferences
In Torres v. Chambers Protective Services, Hendrix authorized notice to similarly situated gate guards in an FLSA collective action and limited the notice group to workers within the applicable three-year limitations period.
“the Court finds that those individuals are similarly situated ... Therefore, the Court authorizes Torres to issue notice to them. But, in accordance with the applicable statute of limitations, the Court limits the group of gate guards notified to the individuals who worked as gate guards within three years”
In Killion v. Truist Bank, Hendrix denied remand after finding that nondiverse Lubbock National Bank had been improperly joined. He dismissed the claims against that bank without prejudice.
“The Court denies the motion to remand (Dkt. No. 6) ... The Court dismisses without prejudice the plaintiff's claims against Lubbock National Bank.”
Cautions
In United States v. Boukamp, Hendrix denied the amended suppression motion. He found Boukamp lacked standing to challenge the search of another person’s devices and account, while exigent circumstances justified obtaining his cell-site location information.
“The Court denies Boukamp's Amended Motion to Suppress in full because the evidence was not obtained through a violation of his constitutional rights. Specifically, Boukamp lacks standing to challenge law enforcement's search of both Doe's devices and her password-protected Discord account ... the warrantless search of Boukamp's CSLI data was reasonable based on the officers' perception of exigent circumstances”
In National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association v. Black, Hendrix denied the plaintiffs’ summary judgment request under the private nondelegation precedents then in force. The Fifth Circuit later reversed that ruling and remanded.
“And under present articulations of the private-nondelegation doctrine, the plaintiffs’ challenge must fail.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court finds that those individuals are similarly situated ... Therefore, the Court authorizes Torres to issue notice to them. But, in accordance with the applicable statute of limitations, the Court limits the group of gate guards notified to the individuals who worked as gate guards within three years”
“the Court denies the first set of motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 33; 37; 40; 45) as moot”
“It grants the second set of motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 62; 66; 68; 72) as to (1) the trade-secret claims against Jackson and Richarte; (2) the knowing and joint participation claims ...; (3) the breach of contract claim as to Sikes and the breach of the non-competition provision as to all defendants; and (4) the tortious interference ... The motions are denied in all other respects. Finally, the Court grants Centennial leave to amend”
“The Court denies the motion to remand (Dkt. No. 6) ... The Court dismisses without prejudice the plaintiff's claims against Lubbock National Bank.”
“denies the motion for attorney's fees (Dkt. No. 9), and denies as moot the motion to strike (Dkt. No. 15)”
“The plaintiffs' Motion for an Emergency Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 124) is granted in part. ... the Court enjoins implementation or enforcement of the ADMC rule until May 1, 2023.”
“no genuine dispute of material fact remains as to Grodman's claims under the Rehabilitation Act. Texas Tech is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court grants Texas Tech's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 44).”
“Because the Court's decision resolves all remaining claims in this matter and obviates the need for a trial, Texas Tech's Daubert motions (Dkt. Nos. 42; 43) are moot.”
“The Court denies Boukamp's Amended Motion to Suppress in full because the evidence was not obtained through a violation of his constitutional rights. Specifically, Boukamp lacks standing to challenge law enforcement's search of both Doe's devices and her password-protected Discord account ... the warrantless search of Boukamp's CSLI data was reasonable based on the officers' perception of exigent circumstances”
“For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they are entitled to qualified immunity and dismisses Bates’s claims against them with prejudice.”
“The defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) is thus granted in part and denied in part.”
“The Court therefore denies the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 11), converts Vaping Dragon’s motion for preliminary injunction into a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 3), and enters final judgment for Vaping Dragon on the merits.”
“The defendants are permanently enjoined from adjudicating civil money penalties against Vaping Dragon in an administrative proceeding.”
“In sum, the Court grants the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 91) and denies the State’s (Dkt. No. 90) and intervenor-defendants’ (Dkt. No. 93) motions for summary judgment.”
“As a result, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”
“Defendants Robert W. Norton and Miguel Langdon’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on qualified immuniry is granted, Dkt. No. 67, and Plaintiffs complaint and his claims against Defendants Norton and Langdon are dismissed with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Lubbock-division single-active-judge division, giving him a broad mixed docket. Referral magistrates John R. Parker and Amanda R. Burch. Caseload illustrative from a 20-docket enumeration, not an authoritative census.
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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, not for Judge Hendrix: 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 Hendrix with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hendrix, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hendrix's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace