Drew Barnett Tipton
How Judge Tipton rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Tipton
Drew Barnett Tipton is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Tipton received a commission on June 15, 2020.
Judge Tipton's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Tipton, 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 these procedures with the scheduling and interested-persons order when serving the summons and complaint or removal papers.
“When serving the summons and complaint or removal papers, Plaintiff must serve these procedures together with the Court’s Order for Scheduling Conference and Disclosure of Interested Persons.”
Discovery
Lead counsel must confer personally on discovery and scheduling disputes before involving the court.
“Conference between lead counsel required. Lead counsel must personally confer on all discovery and scheduling disputes as a final attempt at resolution prior to involving the Court.”
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 Tipton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Shull v. Young, Judge Tipton dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) after finding no standing and sovereign immunity, without reaching the Rule 12(b)(6) arguments.
“The Court first addresses Rule 12(b)(1). Because Shull has failed to sufficiently plead subject-matter jurisdiction, see infra IIIA-B, the Court need not address Rule 12(b)(6).”
Procedural preferences
In Medellin's product-liability suit, Judge Tipton reviewed the objected-to portions of Magistrate Judge Bray's recommendation de novo, checked the rest for plain error, and adopted the recommendation denying an expert-exclusion motion and summary judgment.
“The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court.”
In Pittman and Cooper's suit against auto dealers, Judge Tipton reopened discovery after reassignment and denied pending summary-judgment motions without prejudice because the additional discovery could change the evidentiary record.
“In light of the Parties' additional time to conduct discovery, the Court will deny the pending summary judgment motions without prejudice.”
In Trevino v. PNC Bank, Tipton remanded after intervenors asserted a claim against another Texas citizen, defeating complete diversity.
“Because Intervenors, Texas citizens, assert a common law fraud claim against Trevino, a Texas citizen, for not disclosing that she had failed to make payments on the Property, complete diversity does not exist.”
Cautions
In Parker's prisoner civil-rights case, Judge Tipton granted defendants summary judgment and dismissed the deliberate-indifference claims with prejudice. The uncontroverted record showed Parker had not completed both steps of the prison grievance process, and the grievance window had closed.
“The uncontroverted summary judgment evidence demonstrates that Parker failed to exhaust his claims against the Defendants through both steps of the TDCJ grievance process, and there is nothing in the record to excuse exhaustion.”
In Shull's case, Judge Tipton denied another request to amend after prior amendments had failed to cure the pleading defects. He granted the defendants' dismissal motion and dismissed the FLSA claim against them in their individual capacities with prejudice.
“Further, because Shull has 'repeated[ly] fail[ed] to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,' see Matter of Southmark Corp., 88 F.3d 311, 314-15 (5th Cir. 1996), the Court DENIES his request for leave to amend”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“(2) Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Stanley Kiska, (Dkt. No. 30) is DENIED; and”
“(3) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 31) is DENIED.”
“In sum, the Court GRANTS the Berry Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 67). All claims against the Berry Defendants ... are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Pending before the Court is Houston Community College System's Motion for Reconsideration or, Alternatively, Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal, (Dkt. No. 63). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 29). The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Parker's deliberate indifference claims for lack of exhaustion.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 31), Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 32), and Lithia Motors, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 34), are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“The Court GRANTS the following motions: (1) Yoakum Community Hospital's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 18); (2) the Lavaca Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 44); (3) the Office of the Attorney General and Jill Sklar's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 47); and (4) Adam Clark's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 60).”
“The Court DENIES Plaintiff Craig Dennis Johnson, Jr.'s Motion for Leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 63).”
“For the reasons above, Defendants Cecile Young and Scott Schalchlin's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 49), is GRANTED. ... Shull's FLSA claim against Young and Schalchlin in their individual capacity is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Christopher Shull's request for leave to amend is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 52 at 23-25).”
“(2) Defendant City of Edcouch's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 13), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims against the City of Edcouch are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“(3) Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to amend their pleadings no later than August 15, 2025 as to all claims against the City of Edcouch under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).”
“(2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 13), is DENIED;”
“(3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 16), is GRANTED; and (4) Defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED.”
“(4) Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 163), is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that intervention is not appropriate under either Rule 24 alternative. Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motions. (Dkt. Nos. 148, 149, 154, 167, 172).”
“(2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 12), is DENIED; and”
“(3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 16), is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 923 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 324 days (N = 4).
- Active judge sitting across the Houston (4:), Victoria (6:), Corpus Christi (2:), and McAllen (7:) divisions.
- His current (2026) assignments in the docket record are dominated by the 2026 alien-detainee 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas surge (nature of suit '463 Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee', e.g. Villalpando Rodriguez v. Mullin 7:26-cv-00258) plus sealed miscellaneous/criminal magistrate-referral matters and Social Security appeals: nearly all pending.
- The groundable terminated-merits signal lives in older dockets (2020-2023 filings).
- Sampled terminated/merits dockets here are diverse: employment/FLSA (Shull v. Young), prisoner civil rights (Parker v. Salinas), products liability (Medellin v. Wing Enterprises), investment fraud (Weinstock v. TransAmerica), 1983/municipal (Johnson v. Yoakum; Moreno v. Hidalgo County), inverse condemnation (Westside Ventures v. HCC), and Social Security (Hernandez v. O'Malley).
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 | 14 |
| 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 | 23 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 14 | 23 |
| Sep 2025 | 13 | 28 |
| Mar 2025 | 14 | 24 |
| Sep 2024 | 37 | 26 |
| Mar 2024 | 18 | 26 |
| Sep 2023 | 30 | 26 |
| Mar 2023 | 6 | 27 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 25 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 16 | 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 Tipton: 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 Tipton with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tipton, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tipton's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace