John D. Rainey
How Judge Rainey rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rainey
John David Rainey is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Rainey received a commission on May 14, 1990. Judge Rainey assumed senior status on June 11, 2010.
Judge Rainey's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Rainey, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
Send chambers a courtesy copy of opposed motions and responses, including the electronic filing notice for electronically filed papers.
“A courtesy copy of all opposed motions and responses thereto shall be forwarded to chambers. If the document was filed electronically, attach a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing indicating the document number and date of filing.”
Conferences
Joint continuance motions do not bind the court and are granted only at its discretion.
“Joint Motions for Continuance are not binding and will be granted only at the Court’s discretion.”
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 Rainey decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Aguilar's section 2255 case, Rainey denied a challenge to a sentencing enhancement under the plea agreement's waiver after relying on Aguilar's sworn plea-colloquy statements.
“Aguilar's sworn statements in open court are entitled to a strong presumption of truthfulness.”
Procedural preferences
In Timberlake's product-liability suit, Rainey found two foreign Synthes subsidiaries indispensable under Rule 19. Because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them, he dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants.
“The Court finds that this action cannot, in equity and good conscience, proceed against Defendants Synthes Spine and Spine Solutions without the joinder of Synthes Haegendorf and Synthes GmbH.”
Cautions
In Sauls's habeas case, Rainey dismissed a challenge to the revocation of mandatory supervision as moot after Sauls was released and alleged no collateral consequences of the revocation.
“Petitioner is here challenging only the revocation of mandatory supervision, and he has not alleged any collateral consequences of that revocation. Thus, his petition is moot, and must be dismissed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be GRANTED and their motion to sever should be DENIED as moot.”
“Defendants' Motion to Sever the Scott Plaintiffs' Claims is DENIED as moot.”
“Aguilar's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (D.E. 40) is DENIED. He is also DENIED a Certificate of Appealability.”
“Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Petitioner's petition is DISMISSED. A Certificate of Appealability will not issue.”
“Accordingly, the court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and this case shall proceed to trial in September 2007.”
“As such, the motion to exclude the testimony of Arthur Fisk is DENIED.”
“Therefore, Defendant, Turner Cornell Mooneyham's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #42) and Motion to Suppress (Dkt. #43) are DENIED.”
“For these reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.”
“The Court, having reviewed the motions, the responses of the parties, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Plaintiff's motions (Dkt. ## 258, 267, and 343) should be DENIED, Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. # 260) should be GRANTED, and Plaintiff's motions (Dkt. ## 259, 261, 262, and 266) should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“For the reasons stated above, the motion to consolidate is hereby DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Government's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 35) is GRANTED, and Movant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. No. 27) is DENIED. Additionally, Movant is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability.”
“1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 39) is DENIED.”
“2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 40) is GRANTED.”
“1. The defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 18) is GRANTED. 2. Martinez' motions (Docket Entry Nos. 13, 26, 27, 28, 35, and 39) are DENIED. 3. This civil rights complaint, filed by Gerald Martinez, is DISMISSED with prejudice under FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 206.5 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 129.5 days (N = 4).
Several matters terminated within days (e.g. some mc and same-day cv dispositions) consistent with administrative/screening dispositions; 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 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 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 Rainey: 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 Rainey with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rainey, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rainey's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace