Janis Ann Graham Jack
How Judge Jack decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In qualified-immunity disputes she denies summary judgment where genuine fact issues bear on whether officials exercised professional judgment, declining to resolve credibility/judgment questions on paper -- but she will grant QI to an individual defendant against whom the evidence is thin (here, Weizenbaum). Defendant-specific, evidence-driven, not categorical.
“Accordingly, Professional Defendants Horn, Waller, Geredine, and Benson are not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity.”
In Title VII cases she lets pretext survive summary judgment on the strength of contemporaneous employer records that undercut the stated reason for an adverse action (e.g. a recent 'above standards' performance evaluation), finding a fact issue on the prima facie case.
“Plaintiff has submitted evidence to create a fact issue as to the third element of her prima facie case. This fact issue precludes summary judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff's claim for Title VII retaliation.”
Procedural preferences
She independently reviews a magistrate's Report and Recommendation and will DECLINE to adopt portions she disagrees with -- both partially (adopting the bottom-line conclusion while rejecting specific proposed findings, as in Holmes) and on the framing (declining to adopt the M&R yet reaching the same dismissal on her own analysis, as in Salinas). An M&R before her is genuinely reviewed, not rubber-stamped.
“the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the Magistrate's Memorandum and Recommendation with respect to the proposed findings of fact noted above ... However, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that issues of fact remain for trial”
Cautions
In federal habeas she enforces the successive-petition / jurisdiction bar and the COA standard strictly, dismissing with prejudice and denying a certificate of appealability where the petitioner cannot show reasonable jurists would debate the result.
“Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition ... is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 3 |
Granted in part: 1Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for attorney fees N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. (D.E. 49.)”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity as to Jon Weizenbaum is GRANTED. (D.E. 49.) Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity as to Adelaide Horn, Barry Waller, Denise Geredine, and Iva Benson is DENIED. (D.E. 49.)”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff's claims for gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII remain pending in this case.”
“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for such attorney's fees, without prejudice.”
“Respondent's Motion is GRANTED. (D.E. 40.) Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his convictions for capital murder and attempted capital murder in cause number 97-CR-3827-C is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court ... ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that issues of fact remain for trial as to Deputy Parson's knowledge of a risk to Plaintiff's safety and the reasonableness of Parson's actions given said risk.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 245 days (N = 3).
Senior USDJ, Corpus Christi Division (retired 2025-10-14). Sampled 2018-2022 newly-assigned docket is almost entirely 28 U.S.C. 2255 prisoner habeas/vacatur motions (e.g. Ehret, Villarreal, Ramos, Mason, Jenkins v. USA) plus a few criminal cases (US v. Martinez-Cuellar). Her historically significant civil work -- the M.D. v. Abbott statewide foster-care class action and the silica MDL-1553 -- is not captured in this recent-window sample. No quantitative nature-of-suit census computed this pass.