Diana Saldaña
How Judge Saldaña rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Saldaña
Diana Saldaña is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Saldaña received a commission on February 9, 2011.
Judge Saldaña's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Saldaña'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 Saldaña decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a federal officer damages case, the court rejected a broad excessive force framing and required a more specific comparison to existing Bivens contexts.
“The bar for extending Bivens is at least higher than classifying a case as a ‘garden variety excessive force case’”
In an immigration detention case, the court used statutory text and history to apply 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
“Based on the statutes’ plain text, the statutes’ history, Congressional intent, and § 1226(a)’s application over the past decades, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), applies to Petitioner’s detention.”
In one immigration detention habeas case, the court required an individualized assessment of flight risk and dangerousness, with a chance to respond, for a petitioner with established ties to the United States.
“the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees Petitioner an individualized assessment of his flight risk and dangerousness and an opportunity to respond prior to detention by ICE.”
Procedural preferences
In a state habeas case, the court treated timely responses to a recommendation as objections even though the petitioner had not labeled them as such.
“Though not labeled as such, the Court construes these filings as objections because Petitioner dated them during the objections period, they respond directly to both R&Rs, and they address the issue of timeliness.”
The court held that Texas’s medical expense affidavit procedure conflicted with federal rules and did not apply in federal court.
“the application of § 18.001 in federal court is the epitome of a ‘direct collision’ between a state law and a federal rule.”
For a minor’s settlement, the court considered a guardian ad litem report and a hearing before finding the settlement in the minor’s best interest.
“To finalize this settlement, having heard the arguments of Plaintiff, Defendants, and the Guardian Ad Litem, the Court finds that the settlement is in the best interest of the minor Plaintiff.”
Cautions
After repeated pretrial disputes, the court warned that further failure to follow explicit orders could lead to sanctions.
“The Parties are hereby warned: continued failure to follow explicit Court Orders will be grounds for future sanctions.”
In an employer liability case, the court required evidence of actual knowledge of an employee’s incapacity, beyond general awareness.
“the case law calls for an employer’s actual knowledge of incapacity, as opposed to a general awareness.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 50) is hereby ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART pursuant to the sustained objections noted above. Defendant Romualdo Barrera's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 30) is hereby GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' Bivens claims are hereby DISMISSED.”
“Fuentes' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 1), is GRANTED IN PART. ... The Court ORDERS that Respondents release Fuentes unless he is provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by October 24, 2025.”
“Respondent's Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“Fuentes' Opposed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, (Dkt. No. 24), is DENIED as moot. The preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for Friday, October 17, 2025, is hereby TERMINATED.”
“the Magistrate Judge's Report (Dkt. 51) is hereby ACCEPTED in the manner discussed herein, and LouTex's summary-judgment motion (Dkt. 41) is thus GRANTED. ... Plaintiffs' claims against LouTex are hereby DISMISSED in their entirety.”
“The Magistrate Judge's Report (Dkt. 51) further recommends the denial of an associated request by LouTex to strike aspects of Plaintiffs' response to the summary-judgment motion (Dkt. 49). Noting no objection by LouTex, the Report (Dkt. 51) is also ACCEPTED in this regard, such that LouTex's motion to strike (Dkt. 49) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. 62) is hereby DENIED. ... the Court reaches the same conclusion either under its 'direct collision' analysis or under the Erie doctrine: § 18.001 has no application in federal court.”
“Defendant's Motions to Exclude (Dkts. 64, 65, 66) are hereby GRANTED. ... Plaintiff will not be permitted to pursue a claim for lost wages at trial, and any evidence of lost wages is hereby excluded.”
“Plaintiff will not be permitted to pursue a claim for property damage at trial, and any evidence of property damage is hereby excluded.”
“Plaintiff will not be permitted to pursue a claim for loss of earning capacity at trial, and any evidence of loss of earning capacity is hereby excluded.”
“the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED, Plaintiff's unopposed motion to approve the settlement agreement is hereby GRANTED, the settlement agreement is hereby APPROVED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal the settlement agreement is hereby DENIED. The Clerk of Court is therefore DIRECTED to UNSEAL the settlement agreement 30 days after the entry of this Order.”
“the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ACCEPTED. Thus, Petitioner's motion (Dkt. 1) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE this case.”
“Finding no clear error, the Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 23), is hereby ADOPTED IN WHOLE. The Government's Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Final Order of Forfeiture against $27,000.00 in United States Currency, (Dkt. 21), is hereby GRANTED.”
“Finding no clear error, the Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 21), is hereby ADOPTED IN WHOLE. The Government's Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Final Order of Forfeiture against $98,723.00 in United States Currency, (Dkt. 19), is hereby GRANTED.”
“Finding no clear error, the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is hereby ADOPTED IN WHOLE. Accordingly, the Government's Motion for Default Judgement against $275,905.00 United States Currency (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED. The Defendant currency is forfeited to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6).”
“Therefore, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 2), is DENIED, and Plaintiff has sixty (60) days to pay the filing fee.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. 1), is GRANTED.”
“Respondents’ Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 16), is DENIED.”
“Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 197 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 33 days (N = 4).
- Laredo-division docket. The current (2026) caseload is dominated by alien-detainee 2241 habeas petitions (Rio Grande Processing Center, La Salle County Regional Detention Center, CoreCivic), all recently filed and pending, a border-division surge mirroring colleague Marmolejo's.
- Historically the Laredo judges carry very large criminal dockets (narcotics trafficking and alien smuggling, more than 2,000 felony cases across the two judges in 2013).
- Across the four published orders read: Bivens/wrongful-death (a Border Patrol shooting), wrongful-death/employer negligence (motor vehicle), alien-detainee habeas, and motor-vehicle personal-injury (trial-prep).
- The 2022 terminated-civil sample is heavy on first-party insurance (hail/wind property claims removed from Webb County state court), motor-vehicle tort, and patent (a Lamplight Licensing filing cluster).
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Saldaña: 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 Saldaña with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Saldaña, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Saldaña's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace