Mark Timothy Pittman
How Judge Pittman rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pittman
Mark Timothy Pittman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Pittman received a commission on August 5, 2019.
Judge Pittman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pittman, 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
Motions
Email a proposed order in Microsoft Word for every motion.
“All motions require a proposed order in Microsoft Word format (not PDF) and must be emailed to [email protected]”
Motions
Use Times New Roman 12 point, double spaced text in motions, responses and replies.
“Any motion, response, or reply must be formatted as follows: Times New Roman, 12-point font, double-spaced text”
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 Pittman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Plain-text/whole-statute interpreter: resolves statutory questions on the words Congress enacted (and statutes incorporated by reference), declining to let perceived policy goals or consequences override the text; cites Scalia & Garner's Reading Law.
“The words enacted by Congress control the outcome; Congress's perceived policy goals do not. ... Nor can other considerations, such as pragmatism or the desirability of a given outcome, override the plain meaning of the text.”
On the Railway Labor Act he applies the deferential Conrail 'arguably justified' test: if the carrier's contract reading is arguable under the CBA's express OR implied (past-practice) terms, the dispute is 'minor' and headed to arbitration: the court does not decide who is right on the merits.
“the proper inquiry is not who is right or wrong on the merits of the contract interpretation question, but merely whether the carrier's asserted contractual position is 'arguably justified' or 'frivolous.'”
Procedural preferences
In Besso v. KeyCity Capital LLC, Judge Pittman struck two late-disclosed declarations under Rule 37 because the disclosure was neither justified nor harmless, then granted summary judgment.
“from the moment counsel joined the case ... they had a duty to play with the cards they were dealt. ... Blaming prior counsel for inadequate disclosures does not absolve current counsel of its failure to supplement upon discovery as required by Rule 37.”
In Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. FirstCash, Inc., Judge Pittman rejected FirstCash’s jurisdiction argument as frivolous and expressly warned counsel about Rule 11 sanctions.
“FirstCash's argument on this point -- unlike its arguments on the bona-fide-error defense -- is frivolous. ... Attorneys who violate Rule 11(b) are subject to sanctions.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“GRANTS in part Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and DENIES Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.”
“The Court DENIES FirstCash's 80 Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Strike the Jackson and Lee Declarations from the record.”
“The Court further GRANTS Defendants' Motion and ENTERS summary judgment in Defendants' favor on Besso's defamation and ADA claims.”
“BNSF's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part to the extent that it seeks a declaratory judgment that this dispute is 'minor' under the Railway Labor Act. ... DENIED in part to the extent that it seeks injunctive relief.”
“The Court further ORDERS that SMART-TD's 30 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is DENIED. And the Court DECLARES UNLAWFUL and VACATES the Program.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is DENIED. And the Court DECLARES UNLAWFUL and VACATES the Program.”
“the Court ORDERS that the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 76) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court thus DISMISSES Claims E and F.”
“the Court GRANTS in part Texas’s Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 67). Thus, the Court ORDERS that: 1. Defendants ... are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from enforcing the July 2021 and August 2021 Orders to the extent that they except unaccompanied alien children from the Title 42 procedures based solely on their status as unaccompanied alien children.”
“the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 40) and GRANTS in part Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 37). ... the Court GRANTS summary judgment on Nuziard and Bruckner’s equal protection claim. Because an injunction is better than vacatur under the circumstances, the Court DENIES their APA claim but GRANTS a permanent injunction as set forth above.”
“the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 40) and GRANTS in part Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 37).”
“Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 17), which the Court has advanced to the case’s merits as authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. For the reasons distilled below, the Court DISMISSES three of the Individual Plaintiffs for lack of standing, but GRANTS the motion as to the remaining Plaintiffs, awarding them declaratory relief and a permanent injunction.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) and Plaintiff’s claims are limited to those available through ERISA.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is thus GRANTED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED, and the claims against Flacksgroup are DISMISSED with prejudice. Additionally, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim is DENIED.”
“Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. ECF No. 10.”
“the Court OVERRULES Shaik’s objections, GRANTS Schwab’s Motion to Compel, DENIES Shaik’s Motion for Sanctions, COMPELS this case to arbitration, and STAYS this case pending the outcome of the arbitration.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The caseload description is based on sampled Fort Worth cases rather than a complete authoritative census. No referral magistrate was listed in those cases.
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 | 1 |
| 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 Pittman: 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 Pittman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pittman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pittman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace