David Steven Morales
How Judge Morales rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Morales
David Steven Morales is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Morales received a commission on April 25, 2019.
Judge Morales's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Morales's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Morales decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Garza v. Guerrero, Judge Morales found that the petitioner had fairly presented his claim to the state court despite its placement under a misleading brief heading, departing from the magistrate judge’s exhaustion analysis.
“What matters is that Petitioner fairly presented his claim for resolution to the Court of Appeals, not whether the Court of Appeals ultimately resolved it.”
In Garza v. Guerrero, Morales rejected an exhaustion objection to an expert witness habeas claim because the petitioner presented the same argument to both state appellate courts.
“Therefore, because the arguments before the 13th Court of Appeals and TCCA were the same, Petitioner has exhausted his expert witness claim.”
Procedural preferences
In Winne v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Morales reviewed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and adopted it without repeating its full analysis, as circuit precedent permits.
“the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a magistrate's recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court's two-sentence order adopting a magistrate's recommendation for summary judgment).”
In Winne v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Morales rejected objections that merely repeated the original briefing rather than identifying specific errors in the recommendation.
“Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will not be considered.”
Cautions
In Alvarez v. Cox, Morales dismissed a section 2241 petition for failure to exhaust the available administrative process, finding that the prisoner filed before the agency's response deadline and that substantial compliance was insufficient.
“the Fifth Circuit has held that 'mere substantial compliance' with administrative remedy procedures does not satisfy exhaustion.”
In Thomas v. Kwarteng, Morales adopted a screening recommendation dismissing section 1983 official-capacity damages claims under the Eleventh Amendment and other claims found frivolous or insufficiently pleaded, while allowing specified ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims to continue.
“Plaintiff's remaining Eighth Amendment, due process, and ADA/RA claims ... are DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim for relief.”
In a prison conditions case involving heat and medical care, he granted summary judgment to officials after finding that the record did not show deliberate indifference by the treating physician; disagreement with treatment did not establish the required state of mind.
“Dr. Kwarteng, therefore, is entitled to summary judgment and qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against him.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Respondent's motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 9) is GRANTED; (2) Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, (D.E. 1) is DENIED; and (3) the case is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust.”
“the Court SUSTAINS Petitioner's objection, (D.E. 22), and REJECTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D.E. 21). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Respondent's motion for summary judgment. (D.E. 11).”
“the Court ... DENIES Plaintiff's construed motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 8), and GRANTS Defendant's construed motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 9). The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and the above-entitled action is DISMISSED.”
“the Court ... GRANTS Defendant's construed motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 9). The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and the above-entitled action is DISMISSED.”
Prisoner civil-rights § 1915A screening, which is not a ruling on a party motion. Morales adopted MJ Hampton's screening M&R in its entirety (no objection): retained the ADA/Rehabilitation Act official-capacity claims; dismissed the § 1983 official-capacity damages claims as Eleventh-Amendment-barred ('Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for money damages ... in their official capacities are DISMISSED without prejudice as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.'); and dismissed the remaining Eighth Amendment / due process / ADA-RA individual claims 'as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim for relief.'
“After review, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections, (D.E. 25), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D.E. 24). The Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss. (D.E. 18).”
“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner's § 2241 petition without prejudice pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, (D.E. 1).”
“GRANTS Defendant's motion to compel arbitration except as to Plaintiffs Sarbanes-Oxley claim,”
“and DENIES Plaintiffs pending motions, (D.E. 14); (D.E. 18); (D.E. 27).”
“Finally, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to bar arbitration based on waiver, (D.E. 27),”
“The M&R recommends that the Court grant the motion to remand. ... the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 17).”
“the Court OVERRULES Honda's objections, (D.E. 34), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D.E. 33). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Remand, (D.E. 16), and DENIES all other pending motions as moot, (D.E. 37).”
“DENIES all other pending motions as moot, (D.E. 37).”
“the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 30). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amendment Judgment. (D.E. 28).”
“(D.E. 23), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D.E. 19). Accordingly: (1) Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (D.E. 14).”
“(2) Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is DENIED. (D.E. 1). (3) Petitioner's action is DISMISSED with prejudice as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (D.E. 1).”
“(2) Defendants Ochoa and Muro's motion to dismiss is DENIED. (D.E. 34).”
“(3) Defendant Castro's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (D.E. 35). (4) Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief against Defendant Castro in her official capacity are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 627 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 224.0 days (N = 10).
Qualitative, from the cases read plus the docket index. Corpus Christi / Victoria divisions. The docket is heavily prisoner civil-rights (42 U.S.C. 1983, screened under Section 1915A), Section 2241 and 2254 habeas, and Social Security disability appeals: a pro-se-heavy docket routed through magistrate judges. Recent administrative load includes many sealed search/grand-jury matters.
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 | 11 |
| 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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 11 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 12 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 11 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 6 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 (Corpus Christi Division; also sits Victoria), not for Judge Morales: 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 Morales with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Morales, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Morales's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace