John R. Parker
How Judge Parker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Pro se / prisoner practice: he construes pleadings liberally, holds Spears hearings, and screens under sec.1915(e)/1915A before letting a claim proceed -- but lets genuinely-stated claims through (RLUIPA grooming claim survived screening and got a scheduling order). The Abilene/San Angelo divisions house TDCJ units, so his docket is heavily pro se prisoner sec.1983 / habeas.
“At this stage of the proceedings, Hernandez's allegations, taken as true, sufficiently state a claim under RLUIPA against the Director.”
With/without-prejudice discipline: a loss on the merits (12(b)(6) failure to state a claim, qualified-immunity summary judgment, time-bar) draws dismissal WITH prejudice; a procedural defect (failure to serve, failure to prosecute) draws dismissal WITHOUT prejudice. He applies this in the same order (Estrada: merits defendants dismissed with prejudice, unserved defendants without).
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court GRANT Defendant Norton and Langdon's Motion for Summary Judgment on Qualified Immunity, and DISMISS Estrada's claims against these Defendants with prejudice. The undersigned also RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS Estrada's claims against Defendants Broadus, Melton, Delatorre, Ramos, and Puga without prejudice for failure to prosecute.”
Social Security limitations: he enforces the 60-day sec.405(g) deadline strictly and is reluctant to find equitable tolling; an attorney's late, thin extension request and the agency's silence do not save an untimely appeal. He will convert a Rule 12(b)(6) limitations motion to Rule 56 when both sides submit extrinsic proof (with a careful Rule 12(d) notice analysis).
“Federal courts have typically extended equitable relief only sparingly. And it is only a rare social security case which will present equities strong enough to toll limitations. The undersigned is unable to find that these facts present such a rare case.”
Expert challenges (FRE 702): attacks on a treating physician's fees, payment practices, or breadth of qualification go to the WEIGHT of the testimony, not its admissibility -- the remedy is cross-examination, not striking. A motion to strike that merely reiterates earlier arguments will be reviewed for plain error on objection.
“This argument goes to the weight to be assigned to the doctor's opinion, rather than its admissibility. ... It is a completely valid topic to broach on cross-examination, but it does not mean that Dr. Gutzman's testimony must be stricken.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Daubert N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
Report & Recommendation and Order of Transfer (Parker, signer). 28 U.S.C. sec.1915(e)(2)/1915A preliminary screening of a pro se TDCJ inmate's RLUIPA grooming-policy claim (long-hair religious exercise). Recommended the claim SURVIVE screening and that a scheduling order be entered; required the Director to answer; transferred the case back to the District Judge (no consent to magistrate jurisdiction). EXCLUDED from motion stats (screening order, rules on no party motion). Grounding quote: 'At this stage of the proceedings, Hernandez's allegations, taken as true, sufficiently state a claim under RLUIPA against the Director.' Shows his screening practice: liberal construction, Spears hearing held 2021-08-03 before allowing the claim to proceed.
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court GRANT Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismiss Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court GRANT Defendant Norton and Langdon's Motion for Summary Judgment on Qualified Immunity, and DISMISS Estrada's claims against these Defendants with prejudice.”
FCR (Parker, signer). Sua sponte recommendation to DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE a non-IFP plaintiff's suit (against the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and President Biden) under Rule 4(m)/6(m) and Rule 41(b) for failure to timely serve, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the court's Order Requiring Service (multiple service deadlines blown over a year). EXCLUDED from motion stats (rules on no party motion). Grounding quote: 'the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Trejo's claims under Rules 4(m) and 41(b).' Recommended WITHOUT prejudice because he found 'no reason to believe that Trejo's failures ... are the result of some improper motive.'
“Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations (FCR) of Magistrate Judge John R. Parker (Dkt. No. 37) and the objections filed by the defendants (Dkt. No. 43). The Court overrules the objections, accepts and adopts the FCR, and denies the defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. No. 28).”
“The Court overrules the objections, accepts and adopts the FCR, and dismisses with prejudice Kennedy's Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims against TTCU. Further, because Kennedy's remaining claim for breach of contract against Defendant Assurant, Inc. is pending under the Court's supplemental jurisdiction, the Court dismisses Kennedy's claim against Assurant without prejudice to being refiled in state court.”