Ignacio Torteya III
How Judge Torteya rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Torteya
Ignacio Torteya III has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Brownsville Division of the Southern District of Texas since January 24, 2014. He earned undergraduate and law degrees from Baylor University and previously clerked for District Judge Filemon B. Vela.
Judge Torteya's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Torteya's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Torteya decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Cruz, the plaintiff’s suggestion that a puddle might have formed did not establish constructive knowledge of the hazard; the temporal evidence was insufficient.
“An allegation implying that a puddle may have formed under a cold bottle of water is not enough to impute constructive knowledge.”
Procedural preferences
In Guzman, the retaliation claim could not proceed because the plaintiff produced no evidence of administrative exhaustion.
“The Court finds that Guzman has produced no evidence that he has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his retaliation claim. Without supporting evidence, he cannot proceed to a trier of fact.”
In Salinas, the original petition made the amount in controversy facially apparent above $75,000, supporting denial of remand.
“it is facially apparent from Plaintiff’s Original Petition that his claims are likely to exceed $75,000”
Cautions
In Dave, Torteya recommended dismissing the claims against the police chief and city because they rested on the officer's conduct and Dave had failed to state a claim against that officer.
“Dave has failed to state a claim against Detective Rodriguez in his official or individual capacity. Therefore, his claims against Chief O’Carroll and the City, which are premised upon the conduct of Detective Rodriguez, are also subject to dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is recommended that the Court: (1) GRANT Defendant’s Motion; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.”
“GRANT Defendants’ Motions (Dkt. Nos. 80, 84)”
“it is recommended that the Court GRANT Defendants’ Motion. Dkt. No. 82. Additionally, for the reasons provided above it is recommended that the Court DISMISS all claims against Detective Rodriguez and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.”
“it is recommended that the Court: (1) GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 19]; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.”
“For the reasons above, it is recommended that Defendant’s Motion be GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion lacks merit and should be denied.”
“it is recommended that the Court: (1) GRANT Respondent’s Motion;”
“GRANT the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment;”
Torteya recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because the pro se complaint alleged almost no facts, identified no federal source of law, and failed to state a claim. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. adopted the unobjected-to recommendation on 2026-04-28. Grounding quote: 'For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Alexander’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1]; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.'
“For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Bode’s § 2241 Petition; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.”
“For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DENY Padilla Estala’s § 2241 Petition; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.”
“Accordingly, Allied’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 26) is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The four selected civil dockets include consent and referred matters. They do not provide a representative population caseload or case-type mix.
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 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, not for Judge Torteya: 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 Torteya with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Torteya, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Torteya's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace