George Carol Hanks Jr.
How Judge Hanks rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hanks
George Carol Hanks, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Hanks received a commission on April 22, 2015.
Judge Hanks's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hanks, 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
Direct case-related phone and email inquiries to the case manager rather than the judge or law clerks.
“case-related telephone and email inquiries should be made to the Case Manager. Inquiries should not be made to the Court’s law clerks, nor to the Judge.”
Motions
Except in listed case categories, request a pre-motion conference before filing a Rule 12, venue, remand, or leave-to-amend motion.
“In all cases except habeas corpus/prisoner petitions and Social Security and Bankruptcy appeals, a pre-motion conference must be requested before filing: i. Any motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; ii. Any motion for a change of venue; iii. Any motion to remand; or iv. Any motion to amend a pleading pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 15 where leave of court is required.”
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 Hanks decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Wright's suit against her union, Hanks granted summary judgment after finding that all four res judicata factors barred her claims against it.
“Given that all four res judicata factors have been met here, the Court finds that Wright's claims against the Union are barred. Thus, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Union on this basis.”
In Gomez Morejon's immigration-detention habeas case, Hanks found that detention without an individualized assessment, notice, or an opportunity to be heard violated due process and ordered the petitioner released.
“The Court concludes, in accordance with numerous other courts considering the question, that detention under § 1225(b)(2) as applied to this petitioner, without an individualized assessment or any notice or opportunity to be heard, violates the petitioner’s right to procedural due process.”
Procedural preferences
In Reiss v. Texas A&M University, Hanks reviewed the plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Edison's recommendation de novo, adopted the recommendation, and granted the defendants' summary judgment motion.
“The Court ACCEPTS Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation and ADOPTS it as the opinion of the Court.”
In Smith's exposure-related suit against BP, Hanks found the missed expert-disclosure deadline was not harmless under the four-factor test and granted BP's summary judgment motion.
“Accordingly, the Court finds that all of the State Farm factors weigh against finding that Smith’s violation of Rule 26(a) was harmless.”
Cautions
In James's premises-liability case, Hanks considered Walmart's unopposed summary judgment motion on the undisputed facts rather than awarding judgment by default.
“Summary judgment may not be awarded by default simply because there is no opposition. ... a court may grant an unopposed summary judgment motion if the undisputed facts show that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
In Booth's bail-system challenge, Hanks adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, denied most defendants' dismissal motions, and dismissed only specified capacity claims against the magistrates and district judges.
“Galveston County's First Amended Motion to Dismiss All Claims Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 45) is DENIED; ... District Court Judges' Motion to Dismiss ... is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the claims asserted against the District Court Judges in their individual capacities are DISMISSED. The motion is denied in all other respects”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Given that all four res judicata factors have been met here, the Court finds that Wright's claims against the Union are barred. Thus, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Union on this basis. ... Accordingly, the Union's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 37) is GRANTED and the case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 36) is GRANTED. All other pending motions are denied as MOOT.”
“(2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 44) is GRANTED.”
“Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 23) is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“(2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Fair Credit Reporting Act claim; the claims brought under 18 U.S.C. SS 1341, 1343, and 1951; the claim brought under 12 U.S.C. S 83; and the Truth in Lending Act ('TILA') claim to the extent that Plaintiff seeks recission of the vehicle transaction. However, the motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff's TILA claim to the extent Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to disclose certain terms and conditions of the transaction.”
“(2) Defendant High Lonesome Wind Power, LLC's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED.”
“(2) Galveston County's First Amended Motion to Dismiss All Claims Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 45) is DENIED;”
“(3) Magistrates' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and Brief in Support (Dkt. 46) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the claims asserted against the Magistrates in their official capacities are DISMISSED. The motion is denied in all other respects;”
“(4) District Court Judges' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. 47) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the claims asserted against the District Court Judges in their individual capacities are DISMISSED. The motion is denied in all other respects;”
“(5) Defendant Hon. Jack Roady's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 48) is DENIED;”
“(6) District Court Judge Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Dkt. 94) is DENIED; and”
“(7) Galveston County's First Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) (Dkt. 127) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion to compel arbitration (Dkt. 72) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Gonzalez's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 137).”
“The Court concludes that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that the purchase orders are divisible from the supply agreement. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the bankruptcy court's judgment.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 44) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims under federal law, which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's claims under Texas state law are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).”
“Bank of America's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 111) is GRANTED as to its claims for breach of contract and foreclosure of a security interest under Article 9 of the UCC and is otherwise DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 666 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 264 days (N = 1).
- Active district judge based in the Galveston Division (also Houston).
- His current portfolio is heavy on criminal and sealed miscellaneous matters plus civil cases; the Galveston-era civil docket (2015-2016) is a mix of habeas (Garcia/Spillers v. Stephens), foreclosure (Fannie Mae v. Fonseca), commercial/contract (Benchmark Electronics v. UQM; GYB Investors v. Rigid Global Buildings), and statutory consumer suits.
- The sampled merits dockets among the written rulings span employment/labor (Wright v. TCU; Reiss v. Texas A&M), toxic tort / BELO (Smith v. BP), premises liability (James v. Wal-Mart), consumer FCRA/TILA (Rhodes v. Sterling McCall Nissan), and a civil-rights bail-system challenge (Booth v. Galveston County).
- Because he was a U.S. Magistrate Judge of this court 2010-2015, items before 2015-04-22 attributed to him may be magistrate R&Rs rather than district rulings.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 4 |
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 Hanks: 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 Hanks with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hanks, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hanks's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace