James Wesley Hendrix

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas district Appointed by Donald Trump (Republican) 21 signed orders read

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 employment and Rehabilitation Act suits, grants a defendant's summary judgment where the employer's legitimate, non-pretextual reason for the adverse action is unrebutted.

“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

On FLSA collective actions, grants conditional certification but limits the notice group to the applicable three-year limitations window.

“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”

Polices diversity jurisdiction — denies remand on an improper-joinder theory where a non-diverse defendant was improperly joined, dismissing the claims against it 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

On motions to suppress, denies relief where the defendant lacks Fourth Amendment standing or where exigent circumstances justify a warrantless search.

“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”

Signed rulings

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

Torres v. Chambers Protective Services, Inc.
5:20-cv-00212-H · 2021-08-05
Motion for conditional certification (plaintiff) Granted

“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”

Centennial Bank v. Holmes
5:23-cv-00044-H · 2024-02-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“the Court denies the first set of motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 33; 37; 40; 45) as moot”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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”

Killion v. Truist Bank
5:24-cv-00194-H · 2025-05-29
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court denies the motion to remand (Dkt. No. 6) ... The Court dismisses without prejudice the plaintiff's claims against Lubbock National Bank.”

Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Denied

“denies the motion for attorney's fees (Dkt. No. 9), and denies as moot the motion to strike (Dkt. No. 15)”

National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association v. Black
5:21-cv-00071-H · 2023-03-31
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted in part

“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.”

Grodman v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
5:23-cv-00210-H · 2025-12-29
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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).”

Daubert motion (defendant) Moot / procedural

“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.”

United States v. Boukamp
5:20-cr-00165-H-BQ · 2021-07-28
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“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”

Bates v. Tidwell
· 2024-03-06
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.”

McCarty v. Teal
· 2023-09-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) is thus granted in part and denied in part.”

The Vaping Dragon LLC v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
· 2026-02-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“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.”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“The defendants are permanently enjoined from adjudicating civil money penalties against Vaping Dragon in an administrative proceeding.”

Healthy Vision Association v. Brown
· 2026-02-19
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“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.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied
Gregory v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
· 2025-08-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“As a result, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

Estrada v. Norton
· 2025-11-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.

Put Judge Hendrix's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Hendrix actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Hendrix's own signed orders and cites them.