Alfred Homer Bennett
How Judge Bennett rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bennett
Alfred Homer Bennett is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Bennett received a commission on April 15, 2015.
Judge Bennett's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bennett, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Plaintiffs and removing parties must serve these procedures with their opening papers and file proof of service.
“The plaintiff must serve these Court Procedures and Practices on all defendants, along with the Order for Conference and Disclosure of Interested Parties, the summons, and the complaint. A party removing a case to this Court has the same obligations as a plaintiff filing an original complaint. Proof reflecting service of these materials must be filed with the Clerk.”
Discovery
Before moving on a discovery dispute, email the case manager and law clerks a letter of at most two pages with a conference certificate.
“Before filing a motion regarding a discovery dispute, the complaining party must email the Case Manager and Law Clerks a letter—not to exceed two (2) pages—explaining the nature of the dispute.”
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Bennett decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Barnes v. Felix, Bennett applied the Fifth Circuit's then controlling 'moment of threat' rule to grant an officer qualified immunity on the facts immediately before the shooting. The Supreme Court later vacated that judgment.
“Under Fifth Circuit precedent, the answer is no. The Motion is therefore granted.”
In Pacific Gulf Shipping v. Adamastos Shipping, Bennett applied collateral estoppel after the plaintiffs had litigated and lost the same alter-ego and successor-liability issues in Oregon, and granted summary judgment.
“For collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, to bar the relitigating of an issue of fact or law, four conditions must be met: (i) the issue under consideration in a subsequent action must be identical to the issue litigated in a prior action; (ii) the issue must have been fully and vigorously litigated in the prior action; (iii) the issue must have been necessary to support the judgment in the prior case; and (iv) there must be no special circumstance that would render estoppel inappropriate or unfair.”
At the conditional-certification stage, evidence of a common day-rate policy and more than twenty potential opt-in plaintiffs satisfied the lenient similarly-situated standard for an FLSA collective.
“If such a requirement does exist, Plaintiff has amply met it, as the litigation has already attracted over twenty potential Opt-in Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has met all of his initial burdens, and conditional certification is appropriate.”
Procedural preferences
In Barnes v. Felix, Bennett held a June 2020 status conference and set an end-of-August deadline for summary-judgment motions and responses.
“Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alfred H Bennett. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 6/4/2020. ... Motions for Summary Judgement and Responses should be on file by the end of August.”
Cautions
In Barnes v. Felix, Bennett dismissed the plaintiffs’ Texas Tort Claims Act claims after they did not address those claims in their summary-judgment response or present supporting evidence. The Supreme Court later vacated the judgment on a separate Fourth Amendment issue.
“Plaintiffs do not address their cause of action under the Texas Tort Claims Act in the Response to the Motion. ... Because Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to support such relief, those claims are hereby DISMISSED.”
In Barnes v. Felix, Judge Bennett cited circuit precedent directing courts to give greater weight to facts evident from scene video at summary judgment.
“But the court will 'assign greater weight, even at the summary judgment stage, to the facts evident from video recordings taken at the scene.'”
A securities complaint must plead a cogent and compelling inference of scienter; allegations supporting negligence or gross mismanagement do not satisfy the PSLRA when an innocent inference is stronger.
“Though Plaintiffs have pleaded facts establishing a permissible inference of scienter, they have failed to establish a compelling inference, as required by the PSLRA.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The question is whether the Court can consider the officer's conduct precipitating the shooting -- which included jumping onto a moving vehicle and blindly firing his weapon inside -- in determining whether the officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, the answer is no. The Motion is therefore granted.”
“Having reviewed the parties' arguments and applicable legal authority, the Court grants the Motion.”
“ORDER denying as moot 34 Motion to Strike; denying as moot 14 Motion for Leave to File; denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 17 Motion for Leave to File; denying as moot 21 Motion to Strike.(Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett)”
“ORDER denying 23 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett)”
“ORDER denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett)”
“ORDER granting 13 Motion for Summary Judgment.(Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett)”
“Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant’s Combined Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #15) is GRANTED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Further, Defendant’s Request and Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #15; Doc. #23) is GRANTED as to Defendant’s request for sanctions under Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code § 10.004(c)(3) for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $14,789.66 and DENIED as to Defendant’s requests for (1) a declaration that Plaintiffs are vexatious litigants under Section 11.054 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and (2) an order invalidating the Rescission of Substitute Trustee’s Deed, Deed of Trust, and Assignytent of Deed of Trust.”
“ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss.(Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett)”
“ORDER denying 41 Motion for New Trial; denying as moot 42 Motion for Hearing; denying as moot 45 Motion for Leave to File.(Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett)”
“Before the Court is Plaintiff Scottsdale Indemnity Company’s (‘Scottsdale’) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 14). Defendant Rural Trash Service, Inc. (‘Rural Trash’) has not filed a response. After considering the arguments and the record in this case, the Court grants Plaintiffs Motion.”
“For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. The Court conditionally certifies the following class: ‘All Project Leads and those similarly situated who worked for Defendants and were paid a day rate at any time since three years prior to the filing of this Complaint.’”
“Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and all claims brought by Plaintiff in this case are DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 853 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 344 days (N = 2).
- Qualitative, not a census. The current pending docket (mid-2026) is dominated by the 2026 alien-detainee 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas surge: petitions filed June 2026 against Houston-area detention-facility wardens (Blanche, Frink, Tate, Mullin, Thompson), all pending.
- The five terminated merits dockets analyzed span civil rights/excessive force (1983), antitrust (Sherman Act), employment (Title VII), ADA-employment, and admiralty (Rule B maritime attachment): a broad Houston-division civil mix.
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 | 20 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 16 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 20 | 16 |
| Sep 2025 | 8 | 16 |
| Mar 2025 | 8 | 10 |
| Sep 2024 | 18 | 14 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 12 |
| Sep 2023 | 6 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 7 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 6 |
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 Southern District of Texas (Houston Division), not for Judge Bennett: 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 | 5,742 | 7.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 2,442 | 6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,371 | 7.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 871 | 11.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 58 | 31.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 5,742 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 5,086 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 4,762 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 4,595 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 4,745 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 5,009 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,233 | 7.5 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 Bennett with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bennett, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bennett's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace