Terry R. Means
How Judge Means rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Means
Terry R. Means is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Means received a commission on November 5, 1991. Judge Means assumed senior status on July 3, 2013.
Judge Means's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Means, 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
Filing
Deliver a judge's copy by mail or hand within three days of electronic filing.
“The judge's copy of any document filed must arrive by mail or hand delivery within three days of the electronic filing of the document”
Motions
Email a Word or WordPerfect proposed order with every motion.
“All motions require a proposed order that must be emailed to [email protected] and must be in Word or WordPerfect format.”
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 Means decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a gymnastics injury coverage dispute, he granted the insurer summary judgment because the underlying Texas labor claim fell within the workers’ compensation exclusion.
“Markel has established that the CGL’s Workers’-Compensation Exclusion excludes from coverage Collins’s claim against S.T.C.G. in the Underlying Suit.”
Procedural preferences
In an insurance coverage dispute, he remanded after finding that a plausibly joined Texas defendant defeated complete diversity and the requested severance would not cure the jurisdictional defect.
“The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim against defendant Rosslyn Muriu and that her presence in this case defeats diversity jurisdiction.”
Cautions
In a second suit against law firms while a related case was pending, he dismissed the new case as a Rule 11 sanction after finding it had been filed to delay the earlier litigation.
“the most appropriate sanction is the dismissal of Vinewood’s case against the Sheppard Mullin defendants and Cox Smith.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the City's summary-judgment motion is PARTIALLY GRANTED AND PARTIALLY DENIED. The City's motion is GRANTED in that Cummings's claim that the City unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of him having a record of disability is dismissed because he failed to properly plead that basis in his complaint. In all other aspects, the City's motion is DENIED.”
“Therefore, the Court concludes that Lippincott is not entitled to qualified immunity against Rohus’s First Amendment claim. ... For the foregoing reasons Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“Ryals failed, in responding to AA's motion for summary judgment, to specify evidence in the record and to articulate how that evidence supported her claims. For this reason, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of AA as set out above.”
“Pending before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (docs. 27 & 28), filed September 20, 2010 ... The Court GRANTS the motions for summary judgment, OVERRULES Defendants' objections, and PARTIALLY SUSTAINS Plaintiff's objections.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Blanks's cross motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Blanks's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to their refiling.”
“Blanks's cross motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Metrocare's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. All claims in the above-styled and -numbered cause against Metrocare are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Likewise, Ladd's state-law claims against Cheatham and Edwards are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The respondent’s motion to dismiss [docket no. 14] is GRANTED.”
“Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, Moody’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“Highmark’s motion (doc. #400) for summary judgment is PAR- TIALLY GRANTED AND PARTIALLY DENIED.”
“Allcare’s motion (doc. #397) for summary judgment on the enforceability of the ’105 patent is DENIED.”
“Highmark’s motion (doc. #406) to exclude the testimony of Dr. Stephen D. Holland is DENIED.”
“Highmark’s motion (doc. #399) to exclude the expert opinion and report of Robert A. Sherwin is RENDERED MOOT.”
“Therefore, Alan Byrd, M.D.’s May 7, 2010, motion for summary judgment (doc. 61) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is GRANTED, West Coast’s motion to sever is DENIED, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the motion to amend.”
“Thus, the motion to sever is DENIED.”
“the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the motion to amend.”
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Means: 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 Means with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Means, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Means's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace