J. Scott Hacker
How Judge Hacker rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hacker
J. Scott Hacker has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of Texas since October 2008. He sits in the McAllen Division and also handles referrals from the Laredo Division.
Judge Hacker's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hacker'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 Hacker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Moreno v. Hidalgo County, Hacker recommended dismissing the county-liability and disability-discrimination claims while allowing the excessive-force claim against Deputy Galvan and the ADA accommodation claim against the county to proceed, with leave to amend. Judge Tipton adopted the recommendation.
“he recommended denying dismissal of (1) Plaintiffs' Section 1983 excessive-force claim against Galvan and (2) their ADA failure-to-accommodate claim against Hidalgo County. ... He also recommended granting Plaintiffs leave to amend all claims against Hidalgo County.”
In Sarmiento v. Pena, Hacker recommended denying Rule 11 sanctions after finding counsel had made reasonable efforts to obtain testimony from a witness who could not enter the United States. He also recommended awarding the plaintiff fees for opposing the sanctions motion; the district judge adopted both recommendations.
“there does not seem to be a good-faith basis supporting Defendant Pena's motion. Therefore, Plaintiff should not have to bear the costs of responding.”
Procedural preferences
In Campos v. Collier, no party objected to Hacker's recommendation to deny a habeas petition as untimely. District Judge Tipton reviewed the recommendation for plain error, found none, and adopted it.
“The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. ... No party filed an objection. As a result, review is straightforward: plain error. ... No plain error appears.”
Cautions
In Campos v. Collier, Hacker recommended denying a state prisoner's habeas petition as time barred and denying a certificate of appealability. District Judge Tipton adopted the recommendation and dismissed the case with prejudice.
“recommended that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 1), be denied as time-barred and that the case be dismissed ... Judge Hacker further recommended that this Court deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Judge Hacker made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Immediate Possession, (Dkt. No. 25), be granted. ... (2) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Immediate Possession, (Dkt. No. 25), is GRANTED. [Order Accepting M&R, signed Drew B. Tipton, 2025-09-15]”
“Judge Hacker made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Immediate Possession, (Dkt. No. 13), be GRANTED. ... (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Immediate Possession, (Dkt. No. 13), is GRANTED. [Order Accepting M&R, signed Drew B. Tipton, 2025-09-20]”
“Judge Hacker ... recommended that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 1), be denied as time-barred and that the case be dismissed ... (2) Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 1), is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. [Order Accepting M&R, signed Drew B. Tipton, 2025-03-03]”
“Judge Hacker further recommended that this Court deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability ('COA'). ... (3) the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this matter.”
“Judge Hacker ... recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, (Dkt. No. 25), be granted ... (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, (Dkt. No. 25), is GRANTED. [Order Accepting M&R, signed Drew B. Tipton, 2025-06-06]”
“Judge Hacker ... recommended that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Hidalgo County and Deputy Justin Galvan's, (Dkt. No. 12), be granted in part. ... (2) Defendants Hidalgo County and Deputy Justin Galvan's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 12), is GRANTED in part. The following claims against Hidalgo County are DISMISSED without prejudice: a. Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims; b. Plaintiffs' ADA claim based on disability discrimination; and c. Plaintiffs' Section 504 claims. [adopted Drew B. Tipton, 2025-07-21]”
“Judge Hacker ... recommended granting the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant City of Edcouch, (Dkt. No. 13), and dismissing all claims against it ... (2) Defendant City of Edcouch's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 13), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims against the City of Edcouch are DISMISSED without prejudice. [adopted Drew B. Tipton, 2025-07-21]”
“The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Defendant Pena's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Dkt. 65) ... Defendant Pena's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Dkt. 65) is DENIED [adopted de novo by George P. Kazen over Pena's objection, 2016-07-25]”
“The Magistrate Judge recommends ... awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees incurred in defense of that motion. ... Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is GRANTED.”
“the conclusions in United States Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker's Report and Recommendation are hereby adopted by this Court. Respondent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED [Order Adopting R&R, signed Randy Crane, 2019-12-03]”
“Petitioner's 2254 petition is DENIED, and this civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction”
“A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.”
In a prisoner civil-rights action, Hacker recommended sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The district judge adopted the recommendation without objection and closed the case. Prejudice was not stated in the order.
In a prisoner civil action, Hacker recommended sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), and the district judge adopted the recommendation without objection. Prejudice was not stated.
“the conclusions in United States Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker's Report and Recommendation are hereby adopted. The petition is DENIED, and this civil action is DISMISSED [Order Adopting R&R, signed Randy Crane, 2026-03-31]”
“A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.”
“the application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED, and the Court CERTIFIES that the appeal of this case is not taken in good faith [Order Adopting Amended R&R, 2024-03-18]”
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 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 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 Hacker: 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 Hacker with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hacker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hacker's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace