Gray H. Miller
How Judge Miller rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Miller no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Miller
Gray Hampton Miller is a senior judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President George W. Bush, he received his commission on April 25, 2006, and assumed senior status on December 9, 2018. The court lists him on inactive senior status since September 30, 2025.
How Judge Miller decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Gaddis, the employee supplied neither comparator evidence nor evidence of pretext; the employer obtained summary judgment on the pregnancy-discrimination claims.
“Importantly, plaintiff does not argue, and provides no evidence, that any other similarly situated employee was treated any differently than she was. Nor does plaintiff make any showing that the defendant’s asserted reason for firing her was a mere pretext to hide its discriminatory intent.”
In the consolidated Crowell and Siegel ERISA dispute, the administrator’s reasonable interpretation survived abuse-of-discretion review; the named defendants were not liable for the disclosure claim under the applicable provisions.
“The court agrees with Shell that the plan administrator did not abuse her discretion and that Crowell cannot recover in his nondisclosure claim against any of the named defendants, none of whom is liable under the applicable ERISA provisions.”
Procedural preferences
In BMC, Miller ordered mediation before deciding pending substantive motions, citing the resources their resolution would require. The mediation order decides no party motion.
“Because a ruling the pending motions will require significant additional resources of the Court, the Court will require the parties to mediate prior to the Court ruling on the motions.”
In Leppard, Miller reviewed the objected-to dismissal recommendation de novo and adopted Bryan’s recommendation in full.
“The court ADOPTS IN FULL the M&R.”
In Lamell, liberal construction of pro se pleadings did not excuse compliance with the procedural rules; the court denied the combined dismissal and abstention request.
“Even so, Lamell ‘must still adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and make some legal argument.’”
Cautions
In Fletcher, speculative ineffective-assistance allegations did not establish a constitutional issue under the governing habeas standards.
“A speculative or conclusory allegation does not raise a constitutional issue in a habeas proceeding and is subject to summary dismissal.”
In Rogers, cleaning the vehicle was not a repair or modification under the cited Texas decisions, defeating the implied-warranty and related DTPA claims.
“no reasonable jury would find the cleaning of a vehicle to be a ‘repair or modification’ under the Texas Supreme Court’s definition. Thus, there is no warranty. Rogers’s implied warranty claim and the related DTPA violation claim accordingly fail.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For these reasons, the court DENIES Lamell’s motion to dismiss and his motion to abstain.”
“Accordingly, defendant is entitled to summary judgment. Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is DENIED with regards to Rogers’s negligence claim. The court DEFERS ruling on attorneys’ fees. It is otherwise GRANTED.”
“Rogers’s motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Shell’s motions for summary judgment (Dkt. 39; Siegel Dkt. 32) are GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff Crowell’s partial motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 35) is DENIED as moot, and plaintiff Siegel’s motion for summary judgment (Siegel Dkt. 34) is DENIED as moot.”
“plaintiff Siegel’s motion for summary judgment (Siegel Dkt. 34) is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees under § 1132(g)(1) are DENIED.”
“The court, having reviewed de novo the motions, M&R, pleadings, objections, and applicable law, finds that, for the reasons stated in the M&R, the motions to dismiss (Dkts. 10, 11) should be GRANTED and plaintiff’s claims should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The court ADOPTS IN FULL the M&R.”
“The motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 12) is GRANTED and this habeas lawsuit is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Miller ordered mediation within sixty days before deciding pending motions in the BMC/IBM licensing dispute, citing the resources required by the motion record. No party-motion outcome is counted in this court-initiated case-management order.
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint is GRANTED”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Certain Facts is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“supplemented first amended complaint is GRANTED. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Suncor’s motion to dismiss Musket’s claims for fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and punitive damages is GRANTED. Suncor’s motion to dismiss Musket’s claim for breach of contract - failure to comply with compensation provisions is DENIED.”
“Cameron and Duarte’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Alcantar’s claims against Cameron and Duarte are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“MCFA’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Dkt. 21.”
“Eyob’s motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt. 22.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 531 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 60.5 days (N = 2).
Selected public dockets do not establish a representative caseload or case-type distribution.
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 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 3 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Miller no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.