Diana Song Quiroga
How Judge Quiroga rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Quiroga
Diana Song Quiroga has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Laredo Division of the Southern District of Texas since January 4, 2012. She earned a B.A. in political economy from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1998 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 2001. Before joining the bench, she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Laredo and directed a legal aid project for small businesses.
Judge Quiroga's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Quiroga'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 Quiroga decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a currency-forfeiture recommendation, proper notice and a valid forfeiture claim supported default judgment. The court also reviewed the Lindsey factors and limited relief to what the complaint requested.
“None of the factors counsel denying default judgment. Thus, default judgment is proper.”
In Hernandez, a separate later lawsuit could not relate back to the earlier action under Rule 15(c). Filing after the limitations period supported the recommended summary judgment.
“Characterizing a new lawsuit naming a different defendant as an ‘amendment’ to a pleading such that Rule 15(c) applies is ‘fanciful at best.’”
Procedural preferences
In Guevara, the court gave the prisoner’s First Step Act request a liberal reading as a sentence-reduction motion, then applied the statutory requirements.
“Construed liberally, Petitioner’s Motion (Dkt. No. 15) appears to be a Motion for Reduced Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).”
Cautions
Guevara’s firearm conviction did not support the asserted covered-offense theory. The court also found no extraordinary and compelling basis for release; the decision does not establish a categorical bar on compassionate release for all firearm convictions.
“Petitioner is not entitled to a sentence reduction as his 18 U.S.C. 922(g) firearm conviction is not a covered offense under the FSA and he has provided no ‘extraordinary’ or ‘compelling’ reasons for his release.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Government’s Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Final Order of Forfeiture, Dkt. No. 14, be GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully requests that the District Court ACCEPT the findings in this report and RECOMMENDS that the Government’s Motion for Default Judgment, Dkt. No. 19, be GRANTED.”
“Because the Commissioner’s motion is unopposed, the undersigned RECOMMENDS for the District Court to GRANT the motion, REVERSE the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, REMAND the case for further administrative proceedings in accordance with Defendant’s motion, and ENTER judgment for Plaintiff as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“His complaint, therefore, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and the Court accordingly RECOMMENDS that White’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED and that this action be DISMISSED.”
“The Court therefore RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s Motion (Dkt. No. 15) be DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court, after an independent and de novo review of the record, GRANT the Defendant’s Opposed Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 16).”
Recommended transferring a prisoner’s civil-rights action to the district where the alleged events occurred. The transfer arose from screening rather than a party motion.
“Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows: 1. The civil rights complaint filed by William M. Phillips be DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Recharacterized the nominal habeas petition as a civil-rights complaint and recommended dismissal as frivolous and malicious. This screening decision is contextual and excluded from motion statistics.
“For the above reasons, the undersigned concludes and thus RECOMMENDS that the Joint Motion for Approval of Minor Settlement, Dkt. No. 16, should be GRANTED and that the settlement as to G.I. should be APPROVED.”
“The Court finds that Defendant Burlington Coat Factory of Texas, Inc.’s Opposed Motion to Abate Ruling on Motion to Remand and Request for Leave to Conduct Diversity Discovery. (Dkt. No. 3) should be GRANTED and that Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 2) be ABATED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 62, be DENIED.”
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 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 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 United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, not for Judge Quiroga: 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 Quiroga with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Quiroga, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Quiroga's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace