Brian L. Owsley

How Judge Owsley rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Owsley no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Position
magistrate
Status
Retired 2013
Served
2005–2013
Appointed by
Judges of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Commissioned
2005-05-09
Education
Columbia University School of Law (J.D.); Columbia School of International and Public Affairs (M.I.A.)
Signed orders read
15

How Judge Owsley decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Owsley required electronic-surveillance applications to address the privacy of uninvolved subscribers rather than treating collection of their location records as an incidental concern.

“This failure to address the privacy rights for the Fourth Amendment concerns of these innocent subscribers whose information will be compromised as a request of the cell tower dump is another factor warranting the denial of the application.”

He also required the requested surveillance technique to fit the statute invoked by the government, rejecting use of pen-register authority for stingray equipment without supporting authority.

“The government has not provided any support that the pen register statute applies to stingray equipment.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Whitehurst v. United States
number unavailable · 2005-11-16
Motion to quash depositions (defendant) Granted in part

“Accordingly, defendant’s motion to quash Mr. Harper’s deposition upon written questions is GRANTED. However, defendant’s motion to quash Mr. Davis’ deposition upon written questions is DENIED.”

Brown v. Carr
number unavailable · 2006-05-22
Motion to take depositions by telephone (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to depose defendants via telephone, (D.E.72), is granted consistent with this order.”

Monroe v. Corpus Christi Independent School District
number unavailable · 2006-07-17
Motion for reimbursement and sanctions (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for reimbursement of the mediation fee and sanctions, (D.E. 20), is DENIED.”

Garner v. Morales
number unavailable · 2006-09-05
Motion for extension of time (plaintiff) Denied

“Moreover, plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to file a reply to defendants’ answer, (D.E. 30), is DENIED.”

Thompson v. Joslin
number unavailable · 2008-02-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied, but defendants Dan Joslin and John Doe are dismissed from this action.”

Thompson v. Federal Prisons Industries, Inc.
number unavailable · 2008-04-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Based on the foregoing, the government’s motion to dismiss, (D.E. 19), is hereby GRANTED.”

Brown v. Carr
number unavailable · 2008-09-23
Motion to take depositions by video teleconference (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for leave to take depositions by video-teleconference, (D.E. 35), is granted consistent with this order.”

Kossie v. Crain
number unavailable · 2009-04-09
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration, (D.E. 16), is hereby DENIED.”

Wilbert v. Quarterman
number unavailable · 2009-05-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to dismiss, (D.E. 57), for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted and plaintiffs action are dismissed. Additionally, plaintiffs claims for monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities are dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Moreover, defendants motion for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) and for qualified immunity are denied.”

Kemppainen v. Aransas County Detention Center
number unavailable · 2009-05-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 57), on plaintiffs ADA claim is GRANTED. However, defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 57), on plaintiffs claims of deliberate indifference is DENIED”

Motion to amend complaint (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs motion to amend complaint to bring claims against the TDCJCID, (D.E. 61), is DENIED.”

Irby v. Nueces County Sheriff
number unavailable · 2011-05-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, (D.E. 45, 46, 47), are granted”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted
In re the United States for an Order Authorizing the Installation & Use of a Pen Register & Trap & Trace Device
sealed application · 2012-06-02
Application for pen register and trap trace (government) Denied

“Accordingly, the government’s application for a pen register and trap and trace device is hereby denied without prejudice.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The oldest returned matters combine prisoner civil-rights litigation with short criminal-duty proceedings. The bounded sample is not a representative full-tenure caseload estimate.

A historical record

Judge Owsley no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.