Fernando Rodriguez, Jr.
How Judge Rodriguez rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rodriguez
Fernando Rodriguez, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Rodriguez received a commission on June 12, 2018.
Judge Rodriguez's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Rodriguez, 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
Contacting chambers
Email case-related inquiries to the case manager and copy opposing counsel and self-represented parties; phone only for emergencies.
“Parties may make case-related inquiries by email to the Case Manager, with a copy to all opposing counsel and pro se parties. Telephone inquiries are permitted only in an emergency.”
Motions
Unless ordered otherwise, responses to opposed motions are due 21 days after filing.
“Unless the Court orders differently, counsel must respond to an opposed motion within 21 days from the date the motion is filed.”
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 Rodriguez decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Medina Trejo v. Blinken, Rodriguez found the plaintiffs' explanation for conflicting birth records credible after trial and gave the Mexican birth certificate little weight, granting a declaration of U.S. citizenship.
“while their conduct is not admirable, they provided plausible explanations for their actions ... The Court finds these explanations credible, rendering the Mexican birth certificate of little evidentiary weight.”
In Tolman v. Brownsville Independent School District, Rodriguez treated the alleged reassignment with a future pay cut as sufficient for the prima facie whistleblower inquiry and reserved the employer's legitimate-reason evidence for the separate defense analysis.
“whether BISD possessed non-discriminatory reasons for the reassignment proves irrelevant ... the only reasonable construction of BISD's Motion is that BISD disputes that Tolman has demonstrated a prima facie case.”
Procedural preferences
In Flores v. City of San Benito, Rodriguez reviewed the plaintiff's general objection to a magistrate judge's report for plain error because it repeated earlier arguments without identifying a specific finding, then adopted the recommendation.
“Flores's filing presents, at best, a general objection. Flores fails to object to any specific portion of the Report and Recommendation, and largely repeats the substance of her responses ... The Court finds no plain error in the Report and Recommendation.”
In Hinojosa Maldonado v. Limon, Rodriguez granted the government's summary-judgment motion on derivative citizenship. Although the father's physical presence presented a fact dispute, the claimant had not shown the required legitimation.
“Although Plaintiff has shown there is an issue of material fact as to the applicable physical presence requirement, he fails to do so as to the legitimation requirement. For the reasons in this Memorandum Opinion, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”
Cautions
In Bustinza v. Lucio, Rodriguez adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied the prisoner's requests for additional discovery. The proposed depositions and video would not create a genuine dispute about whether he filed grievances or whether the defendants retaliated.
“This request amounts to an unwarranted fishing expedition. ... a video of Bustinza waiving a 'grievance' at a camera would not be evidence of his having filed any grievances, much less evidence that either defendant acted in retaliation”
In Hinojosa Maldonado v. Limon, Rodriguez found that the plaintiff had not shown the cited Tamaulipas civil code governed at the time relevant to his derivative-citizenship claim. The plaintiff cited a version effective in 1976 without connecting it to events ten years earlier.
“a plaintiff relying on foreign law bears the burden of providing the court with the applicable foreign law. ... At most, Plaintiff cites to the Civil Code of Tamaulipas 'in effect in 1976,' with no indication that this law governed ten years earlier”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Although Plaintiff has shown there is an issue of material fact as to the applicable physical presence requirement, he fails to do so as to the legitimation requirement. For the reasons in this Memorandum Opinion, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”
“On May 4, 2026, the Court granted summary judgment in BISD's favor as to Tolman's claim under the Equal Pay Act, as well as to the bulk of her cause of action based on the NDAA, other than such a claim based on Tolman's reassignment.”
“ORDERED that Defendants San Benito Police Department Officers' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 92) is GRANTED; ORDERED that Defendant Michael Galvan's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 97) is GRANTED; ORDERED that Defendant Jose A. Villareal's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 98) is GRANTED”
“ORDERED that Defendant Sgt. Delgado and Defendant C.O. Rodriguez's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings & in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 175) is GRANTED as indicated in this Order and the adopted Report and Recommendation”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff Lily F. Tercero's Motion to Amend or Alter Final Judgment in Order to Award Prejudgment Interest (Doc. 134) is GRANTED.”
This is a non-motion disposition: a post-two-day-bench-trial Order and Opinion on an 8 U.S.C. 1503(a) declaratory-judgment citizenship claim. The court GRANTED the citizenship declaration (and denied attorney's fees, finding the government's position substantially justified), holding the plaintiff proved by a preponderance that she was born in Brownsville at a midwife's home clinic. The order states: 'Plaintiff Alyn Guadalupe Medina Trejo was born on September 7, 1997, in Brownsville, Texas, rendering her a natural born citizen of the United States of America.' A useful companion to Hinojosa: it shows how Rodriguez weighs midwife birth-record books, contemporaneous city filings, and a later Mexican birth certificate (afforded little weight) in 1503(a) cases.
“ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED; and ORDERED that any claims made against Defendants are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
“ORDERED that the government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED; and ORDERED that Petitioner Jose Manuel Portillo-Guerrero's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody is DISMISSED as untimely filed, or alternatively, DENIED as unsupported by the record.”
“the Court DENIES the request for a Certificate of Appealability.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff Jorge Luis Gonzalez's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) is GRANTED;”
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16) is DENIED; and”
“ORDERED that Respondent Lorie Davis's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 114) is GRANTED; and ORDERED that Petitioner Randall Bolivar's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 108) is DENIED.”
“the Court DENIES the request for a Certificate of Appealability.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff Ruben Guzman's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is GRANTED as to the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Guzman's intellectual and mental limitations were not severe;”
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) is DENIED; and”
“ORDERED that Defendants Axis Renewable Group, Inc. and Campo Lujano Axis Grupo, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment Under the Exclusive Remedy Doctrine (Doc. 68) is GRANTED; and ORDERED that Plaintiff Joshua Parks's causes of action against Defendants Axis Renewable Group, Inc. and Campo Lujano Axis Grupo, Inc. are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1540 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 129 days (N = 1).
- Active Brownsville-division judge.
- His current (2026) civil assignments are overwhelmingly the 2026 alien-detainee 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas surge (nature of suit '463 Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee'), filed against the wardens of the Port Isabel / El Valle detention facilities and DHS/ICE officials (e.g. Atim v. Warden Port Isabel 1:26-cv-00623, Molina Rivas v. Warden El Valle 1:26-cv-00588): nearly all pending.
- He also carries a heavy Brownsville border criminal docket (illegal-reentry, drug, firearms) and a distinctive vein of immigration/citizenship civil work: 8 U.S.C. 1503(a) declaratory-citizenship suits (Hinojosa, Medina Trejo), F-1/SEVIS student-status APA challenges (Villar Castellanos), and the high-profile Alien Enemies Act litigation (J.A.V. v. Trump).
- Other sampled terminated civil matters: maritime limitation-of-liability (In re Signet Maritime 1:18-cv-00035), Section 1983 excessive-force/wrongful-death (Flores), prisoner civil rights (Bustinza), employment whistleblower/Equal Pay Act (Tolman), and breach-of-contract (Tercero v. Texas Southmost College).
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 | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 13 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 16 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 17 |
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 Rodriguez: 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 Rodriguez with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rodriguez, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rodriguez's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace