Andrew Scott Hanen
How Judge Hanen rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hanen
Andrew S. Hanen is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Hanen received a commission on May 10, 2002. Judge Hanen assumed senior status on January 2, 2025.
Judge Hanen's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hanen, 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
Contacting chambers
Do not address substantive case issues in letters to the court; file case-related correspondence with the district clerk and copy all counsel.
“do not address substantive issues in letter form addressed to the Court because they may not be docketed or included in the appellate record. 2) Case-related correspondence must be addressed to and e-filed with: United States District Clerk 515 Rusk Street, Room 5300 Houston, Texas 77002 3) All counsel of record should be copied.”
Discovery
Arrange a court conference through the case manager before filing a motion about disputed discovery or other pretrial matters.
“Any party wishing to raise disputed discovery or other pretrial matters must arrange for a conference with the Court before filing any motion, brief, or accompanying material.”
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 Hanen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Jordan v. State Farm Lloyds, Hanen found a genuine dispute about water damage to several rooms based on a contractor's testimony and denied the insurer summary judgment on those items. He granted judgment on claims the homeowners did not substantively address.
“Plaintiffs therefore satisfied their summary judgment burden to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the allegedly damaged areas of the Property... Plaintiffs, however, do not address any of these argument in their summary judgment response.”
In Langston v. Dominey, Hanen enforced a contract's Walker County forum clause through forum non conveniens because no federal court sits in that county, directing the covered dispute to state court there.
“according to the Alliance Health Group doctrine, the only proper venue for this dispute is in a state court in Walker County, Texas. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens”
In Rodriguez v. Brownsville Independent School District, Hanen granted summary judgment on employment claims after finding the plaintiff had not applied for the disputed position and had not shown a genuine pretext dispute on retaliation.
“Without showing that he was qualified for, and was denied a job he sought, Rodriguez cannot establish a prima facie case... The Court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to this claim because Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine dispute as to any material fact”
In Forman v. Mohamed, Hanen remanded state-law fraudulent-inducement claims after finding that their indirect connection to an ERISA plan did not completely preempt them and the removing defendants supplied no other federal jurisdictional basis.
“Since Plaintiffs' state-law claims are not preempted by ERISA and Defendants [have] not provided this Court with any other jurisdictional basis for removal, Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion of Remand is GRANTED.”
Procedural preferences
In Lucero, Hanen found that a response violated his local rule against combining unrelated pleadings in one filing.
“This response also violates the Court's local rules, which provide that ‘Counsel shall not combine two different and unrelated pleadings (motions, responses, replies, or exhibits) into the same electronically filed document.’ See S.D. Tex. Loc. (Hanen) 3(E).”
In Perry v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Judge Hanen adopted partial summary judgment after confirming that the magistrate judge had reviewed the evidence and law despite the plaintiff’s failure to respond, rather than treating nonresponse as a default.
“where a party does not respond to a summary judgment motion, such failure does not permit the court to enter a ‘default’ summary judgment. ... the Magistrate Judge followed the Circuit's dictates and performed the required review and did not enter a ‘default’ summary judgment.”
In Gato Mesa v. Thompson, Hanen conditionally ordered a bond hearing or release after finding that more than 90 days of immigration detention triggered relief under a recent Fifth Circuit decision.
“has been detained for more than 90 days; therefore, he is entitled to a bond hearing”
Cautions
In Lucero v. General Motors, Hanen denied a late request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice after finding that it appeared designed to avoid an adverse summary judgment ruling and that the relevant prejudice factors favored the defendant.
“a plaintiffs dismissal of suit that is intended to avoid an imminent adverse result on summary judgment is plain legal prejudice. ... this Motion to Dismiss appears to be an effort to avoid an adverse ruling on a pending motion for summary judgment.”
In Schroeder v. American Modern Property, Hanen denied partial summary judgment seeking a declaration because the live pleading contained no declaratory-relief claim and leave to add one had been denied.
“this Court cannot grant summary judgment to Plaintiffs. ‘Summary judgment cannot be entered on a claim not pleaded in the complaint, as that claim is not fairly before the Court.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED.”
“Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. No. 1), is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) GRANTED; ... Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss General Motors. (Doc. No. 34).”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. Nos. 16, 17).”
“Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment for Declaratory Judgment (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 32) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs Renewed Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 37) is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion to Exclude (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED”
“the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens and Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED-IN-PART. All claims against the Individual Defendants are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the mandatory forum selection clause.”
“WWAG's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. o. 11) is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. Plaintiffs have until February 13, 2026 to file a First Amended Complaint. If no amended complaint is filed, the case is dismissed.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand these proceedings is hereby denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 17].”
“Also before the Court are Defendant's Motion in Limine, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, and Plaintiff's Amended Motion in Limine. [Docs. No. 20-22]. These motions are denied as moot.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 68) is GRANTED.”
“the Court hereby ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation and hereby GRANTS Petitioners' Motion for Entry of Defaults against Scorpio Commercial Management, S.A.M. and any and all claimants who have not filed and presented their claims (Doc. No. 28).”
“Plaintiffs' Motions for Remand (Doc. Nos. 61, 63) are DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 424 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 206 days (N = 9).
- Senior USDJ, Houston Division.
- June-2026 newly-assigned docket is overwhelmingly '463 Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee' 2241 petitions (e.g. Ramirez-Monsivais v. Blanche 4:26-cv-04435, Perez v. Tate 4:26-cv-04372, Leon Espinoza v. Mullin 4:26-cv-04285), all pending.
- The merits civil cases sampled span insurance (Jordan v. State Farm 4:24-cv-00900; Schroeder v. American Modern 4:24-cv-04566), products liability (Lucero v. GM 4:21-cv-02893), marine/maritime (Perry v. Halliburton 4:23-cv-04441), patent (Legacy Separators v. Halliburton 4:14-cv-02081), contract (Garner v. Axip Energy 4:24-cv-03300), trust (Langston v. Dominey 4:25-cv-02805), and employment (Elizondo v. Keppel Amfels 1:14-cv-00220).
- The mix above is descriptive; this record does not include a quantitative nature-of-suit breakdown.
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 | 18 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 4 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 35 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 18 | 35 |
| Sep 2025 | 54 | 23 |
| Mar 2025 | 13 | 22 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 18 |
| Mar 2024 | 17 | 22 |
| Sep 2023 | 53 | 32 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 20 |
| Sep 2022 | 9 | 16 |
| Mar 2022 | 18 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 Southern District of Texas, not for Judge Hanen: 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 Hanen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hanen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hanen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace