Karen L. Betancourt
How Judge Betancourt rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Betancourt
Karen L. Betancourt has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Brownsville Division of the Southern District of Texas since June 1, 2023. She earned a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1991 and a J.D. from the University of Houston Law Center in 1994. Before joining the bench, she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Brownsville and as a Texas assistant district attorney.
Judge Betancourt's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Betancourt'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 Betancourt decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Manning's Social Security appeal, Betancourt recommended remand because the ALJ did not explain the weight or supportability of medical evidence about the time Manning spent on treatment. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
“The ALJ, here, affirmatively found inconsistent record evidence as to treatment time, and they found that treatment time is unsupported by medical evidence. ... The ALJ makes no reference to the weight assigned to the relevant medical evidence on treatment time. ... These internal conflicts leave the reviewing Court unable to apply the deferential substantial evidence standard.”
Procedural preferences
In Villar Castellanos, Betancourt recommended dismissing the students' claims after the government restored their SEVIS records. She found the requested relief had been provided and the alleged risk of a future termination speculative.
“Because the Court has already provided all possible relief, the Court finds that the 'actual controversy' in this case has been eliminated. ... it is now 'impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever' to a prevailing party. ... Plaintiffs' claims of collateral consequences are merely speculative in nature.”
Cautions
In Malone's civil-rights suit against a state court, Betancourt recommended dismissal with prejudice because judicial immunity covered the challenged sentencing acts.
“The 107th District Court and its judicial officer enjoy absolute judicial immunity from actions taken in its judicial capacity. This Court recommends Malone's claim be dismissed with prejudice as he cannot sue the 107th District Court for the judicial acts surrounding sentencing him to prison in Texas.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED, and this case be REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Report and Recommendation. ... It is recommended that the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and petition for review of the denial of Social Security Income Benefits filed by Kendra Noel Manning be granted.”
“it is RECOMMENDED that the Court (1) GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 41); and (2) DISMISS Plaintiffs' suit with prejudice. ... the Court finds the case is moot. ... Plaintiffs do not demonstrate an 'injury in fact' ... that confers standing to Plaintiffs.”
“it is recommended that: (1) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, (2) Benavides's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED ... The Court cannot grant Benavides's release as he is a free man. Benavides['s] claims are moot.”
This order rules on no party motion. It is a pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit seeking money damages from a Texas state trial court for ~575 days of wrongful incarceration (later vacated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). R&R FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL recommends dismissal with prejudice: 'The 107th District Court and its judicial officer enjoy absolute judicial immunity from actions taken in its judicial capacity.' The recommendation states: 'This Court recommends Malone's claim be dismissed with prejudice as he cannot sue the 107th District Court for the judicial acts surrounding sentencing him to prison in Texas.'
“After reviewing the record and the relevant caselaw, it is RECOMMENDED that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and Motion to Extend Service Deadline be DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court finds Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate good cause for further leave to amend their complaint a second time.”
“As Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, the operative complaint, fails to state a claim against John Doe defendants 1-15, it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs' claims against John Doe defendants 1-15 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Because Suarez lacks standing to sue on his ADA claims, the Court recommends that his cause of action be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court declines to address the merits of Suarez's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“The Court RECOMMENDS the final decision of the Social Security Administration denying benefits be REVERSED. Further, this Court RECOMMENDS this case be remanded to the Social Security Administration for additional proceedings consistent with this Report and Recommendation.”
“This Court finds the ALJ's denial of social security benefits to David is supported by substantial evidence using relevant legal standards. The ALJ properly determined David is not disabled and capable of finding jobs in the current economy. The Court RECOMMENDS the final decision of the Social Security Administration denying benefits be AFFIRMED.”
“GRANT Spellman’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 10) WITH PREJUDICE”
“It is RECOMMENDED that the Court (1) DENY Saldivar's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 47); ... There exists no genuine issue of material fact that Saldivar can prevail on her claims, and the VA is entitled to summary judgment on all causes of action.”
“It is RECOMMENDED that the Court ... (2) GRANT the VAs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 48); and (3) DISMISS Saldivar's complaint with prejudice.”
“This Court recommends Rodriguez's writ of habeas corpus be denied as time barred. This Court recommends Rodriguez be denied a certificate of appealability as there exists no outstanding issue in the case which reasonable jurists would find the assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. It is recommended that the Court (1) DENY this civil action with prejudice.”
“It is RECOMMENDED that the Court (1) GRANT in Part Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; (2) RELEASE Petitioner from detention subject to supervision in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.5”
“It is RECOMMENDED that the Court ... (3) DENY Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 32); and (4) DENY Petitioner's Motion to Expedite as MOOT (Dkt. No. 41).”
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 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, not for Judge Betancourt: 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 Betancourt with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Betancourt, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Betancourt's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace