Hilda G. Tagle
How Judge Tagle rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Tagle no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Tagle
Hilda G. Tagle is a senior judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Tagle received a commission on March 17, 1998. Judge Tagle assumed senior status on December 31, 2012. The court lists Hilda G. Tagle on inactive senior status since December 31, 2021.
How Judge Tagle decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Musich’s habeas case, she applied the presumption favoring state-court factual findings and held that the petitioner had not rebutted the state court’s account with clear and convincing evidence.
“In order to overcome the presumption in favor of the state court's factual findings, Musich carries the burden of rebutting this account with clear and convincing evidence, which he has not done.”
Procedural preferences
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s recommendation, she applied the rule that frivolous, conclusory, or general objections do not require de novo review.
“if the objections are frivolous, conclusive or general in nature the court need not conduct a de novo review.”
In a hospital privileges case, she considered an unanswered summary judgment motion on its merits because the plaintiff had made later filings.
“the Court finds it appropriate to consider the motion on its merits.”
Cautions
In Lewis Mechanical’s removed diversity case, she found that the plaintiff’s amendment sought to defeat federal jurisdiction and struck the proposed addition of a nondiverse defendant.
“the Court finds that the purpose of Lewis Mechanical's first amended petition is to defeat jurisdiction.”
In Garrett's prisoner suit, Tagle granted dismissal under the three-strikes rule because the prisoner had moved from the flooded cell and had not shown a real and proximate threat in his new cell.
“in order to meet the imminent danger requirement of 1915(g), the threat must be 'real and proximate.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety, Dkt. No 37. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, Dkt. No. 42. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims.”
“GRANTS Respondent's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 15”
“ADOPTS the M&R addressing Defendants' motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 11, and GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 8;”
“ADOPTS the M&R addressing Garrett's motion for judgment, Dkt. No. 19, and DENIES Garrett's Motion for Judgment, Dkt. No. 12.”
“Lewis Mechanical's Motion to Remand, Dkt. No. 7, is DENIED.”
“GRANTS Union Standard Insurance Group, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Under FRCP 12(b)(6), Dkt. No. 10;”
“GRANTS Defendant Union Insurance Company's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Petition, Dkt. No. 12;”
“DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Petition, Dkt. No. 30;”
“STRIKES AS MOOT: o David Girard's Motion to Dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), Dkt. No. 16;”
“The Court GRANTS Plaintiff East Rio Hondo Water *648 Supply Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 16.”
“The Court DENIES Defendant American Alternative Insurance Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 14.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 19.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Donahoe’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 53.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion for ' summary judgment, Dkt. No. 119-1, and DENIES FEMA’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No.' 118.”
“the Court GRANTS the outstanding -portion of Defendants’ motion to dismiss M. Villarreal’s § 1503(a) claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Dkt. No. 66.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants Aetavis, Inc. and Actavis-Elizabeth, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 25, and dismisses those claims with prejudice”
“GRANTS Defendants Wyeth, Inc. and Schwarz Pharma, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 56.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 32”
“DENIES AS MOOT its motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(1), Dkt. No. 62.”
“1) GRANTED Novartis’ Second Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 53];”
“2) GRANTED APA’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 9(b) [Dkt. No. 56];”
“3) GRANTED APA’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 9(b) (Corrected) [Dkt. No. 58];”
“4) GRANTED APA’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [Dkt. No. 59];”
“5) GRANTED CHADD’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 62];”
“6) GRANTED CHADD’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 63];”
“7) GRANTED Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 61]; and”
“8) GRANTED Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority [Dkt. No. 69]; and”
“9) GRANTED Defendants’ Second Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority [Dkt. No. 70].”
“The Court also hereby DECLARES as MOOT Novartis’ Motion for Bifurcation of Discovery [Dkt. No. 32], A separate filing will be entered reflecting final judgment in this case.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 159.5 days (N = 12).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 91.5 days (N = 4).
Several cases terminated within days of filing (e.g. Teague v. Director TDCJ 5d) consistent with prisoner screening / transfer; not entry-read, so dispositions are not characterized. Reported as caseload metadata only.
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 | 39 | 10 |
| Mar 2021 | 21 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 34 | 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 Tagle 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.