Jane J. Boyle

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 18 signed orders read

How Judge Boyle decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Procedural preferences

On a motion to dismiss she dismisses without prejudice and grants a defined window to replead where the pleading defects appear curable.

“the Court GRANTS the City's Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint. Jenkins's claims are each DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court GRANTS LEAVE for Jenkins to file an Amended Complaint WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS of this Order to the extent that they can remedy the pleading defects identified therein.”

Cautions

She enforces filing deadlines strictly, declining to treat Rule 6 as extending a response deadline and denying relief sought on that basis.

“Rule 6 did not extend Plaintiff's deadline to file a response to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.”

Signed rulings

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

Thomas v. Leyline Publishing, LLC
3:24-cv-3061-B · 2026-01-21
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Leyline's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 52). A final judgment will follow.”

Thomas v. Leyline Publishing, LLC
3:24-cv-3061-B · 2025-06-10
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Tabletop Adventure's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 19).”

Jenkins v. City of Dallas
3:22-cv-0960-B · 2022-10-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS the City's Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint. Jenkins's claims are each DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court GRANTS LEAVE for Jenkins to file an Amended Complaint WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS of this Order to the extent that they can remedy the pleading defects identified therein.”

Hamrick v. Georgia-Pacific / Weyerhaeuser
3:24-cv-2386-B · 2025-01-24
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Hamrick's Motion for Leave (Doc. 28)... Hamrick must file his Second Amended Complaint within 14 days of this Order.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“DENIES AS MOOT ... Weyerhaeuser's Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 4, 19)”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“DENIES AS MOOT ... Georgia-Pacific's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6).”

Williams v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
3:11-cv-467-B · 2011-05-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint on or before Friday, June 17, 2011. If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint by that deadline or if his Amended Complaint fails to satisfy federal pleading standards, Defendant may move once again for dismissal, and this action may be subject to dismissal with prejudice.”

Domain Vault LLC v. Rightside Group, Ltd.
3:17-cv-0789-B · 2017-09-28
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“Therefore, Domain Vault's Motion for Leave to File Surreply, Doc. 24, is GRANTED.”

Verrett v. Dallas Independent School District
3:07-cv-00585-B · 2008-10-16
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“Rule 6 did not extend Plaintiff's deadline to file a response to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.”

Institute for Creation Research Graduate School v. Paredes
3:09-cv-0693-B · 2009-12-01
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court finds Defendant's Rule 12(b)(3) Motion to Dismiss should be and hereby is GRANTED (doc. 4) Accordingly, the court ORDERS that this action be DISMISSED.”

Cockerham v. Rose / BNSF Railway Company
3:11-cv-277-B · 2011-04-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(4) are DENIED. The Court hereby QUASHES the services attempted as to all three Defendants on February 22, 2011 and Defendants BNSF and Rose on March 29, 2011.”

Green v. Certified Payment Processing, L.P.
3:08-cv-2263-B · 2010-03-04
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Greens claims against Defendants must fail as a matter of law. Therefore, in accordance with the final judgment entered contemporaneously with this Order, the Court finds Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be and hereby is GRANTED (doc. 17).”

Ryan, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service
3:25-cv-00078-B · 2026-06-26
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court DENIES Ryan’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60)”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANTS the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part (Doc. 62)”

Farlow v. L3 Communications Integrated Systems LP
3:23-cv-01661-B · 2026-03-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Defendant L3Harris’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 32)”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“DENIES Plaintiff Farlow’s Motion to Strike as moot”

Put Judge Boyle's record to work

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

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