David Hittner
How Judge Hittner rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hittner
David Hittner is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Hittner received a commission on June 9, 1986. Judge Hittner assumed senior status on November 11, 2004.
Judge Hittner's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hittner, 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
Serve the conference and interested-parties order with the opening papers; removing defendants must also serve it on other counsel and file a service certificate.
“Plaintiffs must serve a copy of the Order for Conference and Disclosure of Interested Parties on Defendants with the summons and complaint. Defendants removing cases from state court must serve a copy of the Order for Conference and Disclosure of Interested Parties on all other counsel and file a Certificate of Service with the Clerk of this Court.”
Trial
Trial continuances require exceptional circumstances; an agreed request alone does not bind the court.
“A continuance will be granted only on the basis of exceptional circumstances. Joint or agreed motions for continuance are not binding on the Court and will not be granted as a routine matter.”
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 Hittner decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In immigration-detention habeas, the government carries the burden and must show its own compliance: a re-detention without following ICE's own regulations, with no factual basis that the person violated supervision or that removal is reasonably foreseeable, is a due-process violation that gets the petition granted and immediate release ordered. Conversely, in a sentence-computation 2241, the warden's authenticated summary-judgment evidence carries the day when the petitioner offers none, so the dispositive question is which side put real evidence in the record.
“the government does not identify any changed circumstances that would appear to warrant the revocation of Villanueva's supervision and his re-detention without even the barest hint of due process. ... The only way to vindicate Villanueva's due process rights is to order his release from custody.”
Sovereign immunity is decisive on state-law claims against Texas state entities in federal court: Texas has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for TCHRA (state employment-discrimination) claims, so those are dismissed even where the parallel federal Title VII claim survives.
“While Texas has waived its sovereign immunity in state courts for TCHRA violations, it has not implicitly waived sovereign immunity in federal courts as well. ... Accordingly, TWU's motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Huber's TCHRA claim.”
In Rick Behr Construction v. Zions Bancorporation, Hittner dismissed a negligence claim over bank statements after finding it displaced by UCC section 4.406; the plaintiff offered no rebuttal to the bank's statutory argument.
“Here, Defendant contends that Section 4.406 of the UCC applies and thus, Plaintiff's common law negligence claim is precluded. Plaintiff offers no rebuttal. ... the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and thus, their claim for negligence is dismissed.”
Procedural preferences
In BMC Software v. Baker Hughes, Hittner overruled objections from both sides, adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, and denied the defendants' summary-judgment motions after reviewing the record and law.
“The objections are overruled. After due consideration of the entire record and the applicable law, the court hereby ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation as this court's opinion.”
In Huber v. Texas Woman’s University, Judge Hittner dismissed the state-law employment claim on sovereign-immunity grounds but allowed the federal Title VII claim to proceed under the pleading standard.
“the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted. ... the Court will examine Huber's complaint to determine whether the allegations provide relief on any possible theory or claim.”
After the Fifth Circuit sent a contract dispute back for further proceedings, Hittner treated the earlier Pennsylvania-to-Texas transfer ruling as governing unless exceptional circumstances justified reconsidering it. He denied a request to transfer the case back when the plaintiffs did not show the earlier ruling was erroneous.
“this Court finds that the transfer of this matter was not erroneous, and thus, declines to independently reconsider the transferor court's determination.”
Cautions
A Section 1983 plaintiff must sue a proper state actor and plead personal involvement: prosecutors have absolute prosecutorial immunity (and the elected DA is not liable on a respondeat-superior theory absent an unconstitutional policy), and court-appointed defense counsel are NOT state actors. Even a sympathetic five-years-in-jail speedy-trial grievance fails if aimed at immune or non-state-actor defendants.
“neither public defenders nor appointed or retained private defense attorneys act under color of state law when they are performing a lawyer's traditional functions in representing a criminal defendant ... Ortiz's motion to dismiss is granted, and Dyer's claims against him are dismissed for failing to state a claim.”
A prisoner Eighth Amendment medical claim must allege deliberate indifference, not merely a difference of medical opinion or negligence. Where the inmate's own pleadings show he was examined, treated, and referred, a later contrary recommendation by another provider is only a disagreement and the claim is dismissed with prejudice.
“the fact that a different orthopedic physician later recommended surgery establishes only a difference of opinion among medical providers rather than deliberate indifference”
In Keculah v. ASI Lloyds, Judge Hittner dismissed the case with prejudice after the plaintiff missed a show-cause hearing, awarded $127,026.88 in fees and costs, and warned that further duplicative filings could draw a filing injunction.
“Plaintiff is WARNED that additional sanctions, including a comprehensive pre-filing injunction prohibiting Keculah from initiating any new lawsuits in the Southern District of Texas, may be imposed if he persists in filing duplicative and vexatious lawsuits.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The respondents' motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. 12), is DENIED.”
“Villanueva's petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Dkt. 1), is GRANTED. Within three hours of the issuance of this Order, the respondents must RELEASE Villanueva from custody to a public place pursuant the original conditions of the Order of Supervision of March 23, 2017.”
“Warden Hall's motion for summary judgment is granted, and Jones's petition is denied. ... Respondent Hall's motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, (Dkt. 12), is GRANTED.”
“District Attorney Sean Teare and Assistant District Attorney Jessica Caird's motions to dismiss, (Dkt 15, 20), are GRANTED. ... Attorney Jimmy Joe Ortiz's motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 17), is GRANTED. ... Dyer's civil-rights action, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendant Dr. Solce's motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 40), is GRANTED.”
“ORDERS that TWU's Motion to Dismiss (Instrument No. 4) is GRANTED as to Huber's state law discrimination claim. The Court further DENIES TWU's motion in all other respects.”
“On August 24, 2022, Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Alternative Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Denying Plaintiff's Requested Monetary Remedies be denied. ... The objections are overruled. ... the court hereby ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation as this court's opinion.”
“On January 17, 2023, Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that Mary Jane Meyer's motion for summary judgment be denied and Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted. ... the court hereby ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation as this court's opinion. The Commissioner's final decision is affirmed.”
“Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that Mary Jane Meyer's motion for summary judgment be denied and Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted. ... ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation ... The Commissioner's final decision is affirmed.”
“On January 19, 2022, Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that Donna Jo Ware's cross-motion for summary judgment be denied and Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment be granted. ... Plaintiff's objections are overruled. ... the court hereby ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation as this court's opinion. The Commissioner's final decision is affirmed.”
“Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that Donna Jo Ware's cross-motion for summary judgment be denied and Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment be granted. ... ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation ... The Commissioner's final decision is affirmed.”
“ORDERS that Defendant Spring Branch Independent School District's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Document No. 30) is DENIED IN PART with respect to Plaintiffs' Failure to Accommodate claims and GRANTED IN PART with respect to all other claims Plaintiffs' bring against Defendant Spring Branch Independent School District.”
“ORDERS that Defendants Soliant Health, LLC d/b/a Soliant Health's and Jamila Tressie Spencer's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Document No. 32) is DENIED.”
“ORDERS that Defendant Spring Branch Independent School District's Motion to Strike Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Response to SBISD's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Document No. 50) is GRANTED.”
“ORDERS that Defendant Amegy Bank's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Document No. 5) is GRANTED. ... ORDERS that Plaintiff Rick Behr Construction, Inc.'s claims against Defendant Zions Bankcorporation, N.A. d/b/a Amegy Bank are DISMISSED.”
“ORDERS that Plaintiff Rentokil North America, Inc.'s Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Document No. 74) is GRANTED IN PART. ... ORDERS that Plaintiff is AWARDED attorneys' fees in the sum of $153,807.00. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff is AWARDED costs of court in the amount of $1,090.50.”
“ORDERS that Defendants' Petition for Attorneys' Fees & Costs Pursuant to the Express Terms of the Parties' Franchise Agreement (Document No. 30) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 441 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 38 days (N = 13).
- Senior judge still carrying an active Houston-division docket in 2026.
- His current (2026) civil assignments in the docket record include a large share of the 2025-2026 alien-detainee 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas surge (nature of suit '463 Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee', e.g. Villanueva Herrera v. Tate, Villatoro Fuentes v. Joyce: several transferred in from S.D.N.Y. / E.D.N.Y.), plus personal-injury (Button v. Marriott), prisoner civil rights (McClain v. Tehum Care), civil-rights / FTCA, Social Security appeals, and a Houston criminal docket (e.g. United States v. Polk).
- Historically known for major commercial/securities and high-profile criminal matters (R.
- Allen Stanford Ponzi trial).
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Hittner: 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 Hittner with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hittner, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hittner's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace