Sam Allen Lindsay
How Judge Lindsay rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lindsay
Sam A. Lindsay is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Lindsay received a commission on March 17, 1998.
Judge Lindsay's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Lindsay, 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
File summary judgment motions within fourteen days after discovery closes.
“All motions for summary judgment shall be filed not later than 14 days after the discovery deadline.”
Conferences
File a joint status report within 29 days of the status report order.
“The joint status report shall be filed (not mailed) not later than 29 days after the date of the Status Report Order.”
Trial
File motions in limine at least 21 days before trial.
“Motions in limine shall be filed not later than twenty-one days prior to the scheduled trial date.”
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 Lindsay decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hagmann v. Deutsche Bank, Lindsay dismissed an anti-foreclosure suit with prejudice because the complaint requested only injunctive relief and pleaded no viable underlying cause of action.
“the court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses with prejudice this action.”
In Campanello v. Mosaic Sales Solutions, he denied a dismissal motion against an associational ADA discrimination claim after finding that the cited Fifth Circuit decisions had left the theory unresolved and did not require dismissal at the pleading stage.
“Accordingly, the court determines that this argument by Defendants does not warrant dismissal of Plaintiff’s ADA claim at this juncture.”
Procedural preferences
In Brown v. Talley Logistics, Lindsay dismissed a Title VII complaint without prejudice because it did not plead the employer-size threshold. He allowed amendment after finding the case was at an early stage and the defect might be cured.
“the court grants Defendant Talley Logistics Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9); overrules as moot Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 15); dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's claims; and grants Plaintiff leave to amend her pleadings to correct the deficiencies identified by the court.”
In Osueke, the court adopted a recommendation denying a pretrial challenge to an odometer fraud count where the indictment tracked the statute and the defendant disputed facts for trial.
“Count Two sufficiently tracks the language of the relevant criminal statutes,”
Cautions
In Arkansas v. Wilmington Trust, Lindsay denied both sides’ summary-judgment motions because a genuine factual dispute remained over whether the plaintiff applied for the home-equity loan or another person forged her signature.
“the court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment, as a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether she applied for the loan, or some other person forged her signature to obtain the home equity loan”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses with prejudice this action.”
“the court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10). Claims two and five are dismissed without prejudice for failure to satisfy the pleading requirements outlined in Rule 8 and 12(b)(6). The court orders Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by 5 p.m. on April 21, 2025, that cures the deficiencies herein noted.”
“the court grants Defendant Talley Logistics Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9); overrules as moot Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 15); dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's claims; and grants Plaintiff leave to amend her pleadings to correct the deficiencies identified by the court.”
“the court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment, as a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether she applied for the loan, or some other person forged her signature to obtain the home equity loan”
“the court determines that judgment on this basis is premature and not appropriate given the genuine dispute of material fact issues surrounding Plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment ... Having determined that the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment should be and are hereby denied”
“the court grants Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs' claims for violations of the Texas Constitution.”
“the court denies as moot Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doc. 12)”
“Accordingly, the court grants Amerihome's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12), denies Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 14), and dismisses with prejudice this action.”
“the court grants Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 10); dismisses without prejudice Defendant's counterclaim for declaratory judgment; vacates the hearing set for February 16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.; and remands this action to the 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.”
“Accordingly, the court grants summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and alleged violations of the Texas Insurance Code and DTPA. The court denies summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and breach of the Prompt Payment of Claims Act.”
“the court grants the Motion and also grants Plaintiff leave to replead, but only with respect to those claims not dismissed with prejudice as time-barred.”
“For the reasons explained, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 15) is granted in part and denied in part; and denies as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing on Pending Motion (Doc. 16).”
“For the reasons explained, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' Motion (Doc. 108) and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's and Counter Defendants' Motion (Doc. 111).”
“Before the court is Petitioner Manuel Antonio Toribio Vinces’s (Petitioner) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (The Motion) (Doc. 2) filed on April 30, 2026. After considering the Motion, pleadings, and applicable law, the court denies Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 2).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The caseload description is illustrative of the sampled cases and is not a complete 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 | 16 |
| 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 16 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 11 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 5 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 4 |
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 Lindsay: 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 Lindsay with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lindsay, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lindsay's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace