Julie K. Hampton
How Judge Hampton rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hampton
Julie K. Hampton has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi since January 2020. She earned a B.A. in political science from the University of Kentucky in 1998 and a J.D. from Baylor University School of Law in 2001.
Judge Hampton's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hampton, 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
Discovery
Lead counsel must confer personally on discovery and scheduling disputes before seeking court involvement.
“Conference between lead counsel required. Lead counsel must personally confer on all discovery and scheduling disputes as a final attempt at resolution prior to involving the Court.”
Discovery
A party seeking permission to move on a discovery or scheduling dispute must submit a letter of about two single-spaced pages.
“Initiating letter required. Do not bring a motion on discovery and scheduling disputes without permission. To obtain permission, the party seeking relief must submit a letter not exceeding approximately two single-spaced pages. Identify the nature of the dispute, outline the issues, and state the contested relief sought.”
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 Hampton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Yow's habeas case, Hampton recommended dismissal under AEDPA's one-year limitations period after finding the petition untimely and equitable tolling unsupported. The district judge adopted her recommendation.
“Respondent's motion for summary judgment (D.E. 16) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED as untimely.”
In a jail medical-care suit, she treated alleged failures to accommodate an underlying diabetes disability as distinct from allegations of inadequate treatment for a later infection, and recommended that the accommodation claims proceed past dismissal.
“Wennermark has adequately alleged intentional discrimination under the ADA and RA, and the County’s motion to dismiss should be denied on this claim.”
Procedural preferences
In McCurry's prisoner civil-rights case, Hampton recommended dismissing the civil claims as frivolous and leaving a challenge to his convictions for a timely habeas petition after exhaustion of state remedies.
“Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous as having no arguable basis in law or fact.”
Cautions
In Pena v. Waypoint Marine, Hampton recommended denying Uflex USA’s personal-jurisdiction motion because it had waived that objection in state court before removal. The district judge later adopted her recommendation.
“Accordingly, it is recommended that Uflex’s motion to dismiss (D.E. 3) be DENIED.”
In a civil suit seeking relief during related state proceedings, Hampton recommended applying Younger abstention after finding its conditions met and no exception shown. The adopted order dismissed the injunctive and declaratory claims without prejudice and stayed the monetary claims.
“Because all three conditions of the Younger abstention doctrine are met, and Plaintiffs fail to show that an exception applies,”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Respondent's motion for summary judgment (D.E. 16) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED as untimely.”
“In the event that Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability, that request is DENIED.”
“recommending that the Court deny Defendant Uflex USA, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. ... Defendant Uflex USA, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 3) is DENIED.”
“the application for EAJA fees (D.E. 19) is GRANTED and Bustos's attorney of record is hereby awarded the sum of $9,563 in attorney's fees pursuant to the EAJA.”
In a Prison Litigation Reform Act screening disposition rather than a ruling on a party's dispositive motion, Hampton's M&R recommended dismissing the prisoner-plaintiff's claims with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim in a suit against the United States, the President, Congress, Pelosi, Texas, and Governor Abbott. She recommended dismissing any conviction-challenge claims without prejudice to a future exhausted habeas petition. District Judge Drew B. Tipton adopted the M&R over the plaintiff's six objections after de novo review, and also denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Hampton recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after the pro se plaintiff failed to prosecute. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos adopted the unobjected-to recommendation.
Hampton recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after the pro se plaintiff failed to prosecute. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos adopted the unobjected-to recommendation.
Hampton transferred a prisoner civil-rights action from the Victoria Division to the Corpus Christi Division because the events, defendants, and plaintiff's place of confinement were in Bee County.
After a show-cause hearing, Hampton revoked the defendant's pretrial release and ordered detention. She found clear and convincing evidence of a release-condition violation and found the defendant unlikely to comply with any condition or combination of conditions.
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Reopen Case (D.E. 45) be DENIED.”
Hampton recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos adopted the unobjected-to recommendation.
“GRANTS Defendant's motion to compel arbitration except as to Plaintiffs Sarbanes-Oxley claim,”
“Dana’s motion (D.E. 11) be GRANTED”
“the Commissioner’s motion (D.E. 16) be DENIED”
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 | 1 | 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 Hampton: 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 Hampton with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hampton, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hampton's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace