David Hittner
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.”
Failing to rebut a dispositive argument is repeatedly fatal before him: when a movant identifies a controlling preemption/limitations bar and the non-movant offers no answer, he grants. In a bank-account dispute he held a common-law negligence claim precluded by UCC Section 4.406 (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code) because the customer must promptly examine statements -- 'Plaintiff offers no rebuttal.' Statute-displaces-common-law-tort arguments land when unanswered.
“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
He uses Magistrate Judges heavily and adopts their Reports & Recommendations by the book -- overruling objections and adopting the M&R 'as this court's opinion' on dispositive motions (summary judgment in commercial and SSA cases). To preserve an issue, a party must file formal, specific objections; correspondence/letters styled as objections are sent back to be 'formally filed.'
“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.”
On a 12(b)(6) motion he applies the traditional, plaintiff-favorable standard -- the motion 'is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted,' the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff -- and will deny the motion as to claims that clear that low bar while granting only the parts barred as a matter of law (e.g. immunity).
“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.”
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 ... Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.”
He enforces court orders and polices abusive litigation hard: a plaintiff who ignores a show-cause hearing can be dismissed with prejudice, hit with the opponent's full attorneys' fees (here $127,026.88), bound by broad claim-preclusion, and warned that a comprehensive pre-filing injunction will follow continued duplicative/vexatious filings. Do not no-show a Hittner show-cause order.
“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.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 11 |
Granted: 5Denied: 6 | 45% granted |
| Motions to dismiss N = 7 |
Granted: 3Granted in part: 2Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for attorney fees N = 2 |
Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to remand N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Habeas petition N = 2 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to amend N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for sanctions N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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. ... his own allegations establish that the treatment was sufficient to meet constitutional standards. Therefore, Dr. Solce's motion to dismiss is granted, and Guerra's claims against him ... are dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).”
“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: 446.5 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 111 days (N = 5).
Senior judge still carrying an active Houston-division docket in 2026. His current (2026) civil assignments via search_dockets(assigned_judge='David Hittner') 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).