Keith Paty Ellison
How Judge Ellison rules, drawn from 52 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ellison
Keith P. Ellison is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Ellison received a commission on July 7, 1999.
Judge Ellison's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Ellison, 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
Filing
Serve these procedures and the conference order with the summons and complaint or removal papers, then file proof of service.
“Plaintiff must serve these materials, and the Order for Conference And Disclosure Of Interested Parties on all defendants with the summons and complaint. A party removing a case to this Court has the same obligation as a plaintiff filing an original complaint. Proof reflecting service of these materials must be filed with the Clerk.”
Filing
Send emergency motions to chambers the day they are filed.
“All emergency motions should be sent to Chambers Room 3716 the day of filing.”
Filing
Send documents with appendices or exhibits totaling more than 50 pages to chambers on the filing day, hole punched and bound in a tabbed binder.
“Any document with an appendix or set of exhibits that totals more than 50 pages should be sent to Chambers Room 3716 the day of filing. The document and exhibits should be hole punched, bound, and tabbed in a binder type notebook.”
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 Ellison decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Jordan's insurance dispute, Ellison left her prompt-payment interest claim for further proceedings because State Farm had not shown that she accepted its appraisal payment as a settlement of that claim.
“State Farm is not entitled to summary judgment absent evidence of Jordan's intent to accept that payment as a settlement of her TPPCA claim. ... a question of fact remains as to what the interest rate will be at the time of judgment.”
In Drilltech's contract dispute, Ellison compelled arbitration and dismissed the case pending arbitration after finding that the parties were covered by the agreement and the resisting party had not shown it invalid.
“Because Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Parties are subject to the arbitration agreement and Defendant has failed to show that the Agreement is invalid, Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Arbitration are GRANTED. This civil action is hereby DISMISSED pending arbitration.”
In Wagner v. Harris County, Ellison denied severance of claims arising from 27 jail incidents because the plaintiffs alleged injuries from shared policies or practices. He also granted two inmates' relatives permission to intervene.
“Because Plaintiffs’ injuries were allegedly caused by a common set of policies or practices, the Court finds that Plaintiffs satisfy the same transaction test.”
In Cole v. Collier, Ellison certified a general class and two subclasses of Texas inmates seeking systemic relief from dangerous summer heat under the Eighth Amendment, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act. The Fifth Circuit allowed the certification to stand, and the case later settled with air-conditioning requirements. He also enforced the class boundaries by denying intervention to inmates at other facilities whose conditions presented different facts and whose participation would delay relief for the existing class.
“On June 14, 2016, the Court certified one General Class and two subclasses. ... None of the Movants are incarcerated at the Wallace Pack Unit, which is the facility housing all named Plaintiffs and class members. ... permitting intervention would cause undue delay and prejudice to the existing parties.”
In Jones’s employment case, the court found enough evidence of possible pretext for a fact-finder and denied the employer’s summary-judgment motion.
“the Court concludes that Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to support the conclusion by a fact-finder that Defendant’s decision to terminate her was pretextual.”
Procedural preferences
In McDade's mortgage case, Ellison dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and did not reach the defendant's alternative summary-judgment arguments or attached evidence.
“As the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), it does not consider Defendant's alternative arguments for summary judgment or the evidence attached to the motion.”
In Ramos's habeas case, Ellison granted summary judgment on limitations grounds because the state habeas application was filed after the federal deadline and did not toll it. He dismissed the petition with prejudice.
“a state habeas application filed after expiration of federal limitations has no tolling effect ... The motion for summary judgment ... is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as barred by limitations.”
In a civil rights discovery dispute, he allowed discovery beyond qualified immunity and enforced a subpoena for police policies, finding that an existing protective order addressed confidentiality and that admissibility was not the test for discovery.
“information need not be admissible to be discoverable.”
Cautions
In McDade's mortgage case, Ellison denied leave to amend after the plaintiff waited more than a year and sought amendment following the defendant's summary-judgment motion without explaining the delay.
“the fact that a defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment is significant in the determination whether a plaintiff's subsequent motion to amend is timely. ... Plaintiff has not offered any explanation for the delay in filing for leave to amend, despite waiting over one year”
In an employment retaliation claim, he required evidence that the actual termination decision maker knew of the employee’s protected activity; the employee’s suspicion that a request reached management was insufficient.
“this is not sufficient to show ‘actual’ knowledge of Plaintiff’s protected request on the part of Ms. Martinez.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court finds that State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Jordan's claims for breach of contract and bad faith. The Motion is DENIED with respect to Jordan's TPPCA claim for interest and attorney's fees.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED. ... Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff's Motion and Memorandum in Support for Leave to File Amended Second Petition and Jury Demand (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED.”
“The motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 15) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as barred by limitations. ... A certificate of appealability is DENIED.”
“The motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 9) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as barred by limitations. ... A certificate of appealability is DENIED.”
“the Court finds that Defendants' Motion (Doc. Nos. 27, 32) must be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ... the Court GRANTS the Amended Motion to Dismiss as to the following claims: All negligent misstatement claims [and certain Hayward-speech-based claims] ... In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED.”
“the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED. ... Because Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Parties are subject to the arbitration agreement and Defendant has failed to show that the Agreement is invalid, Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Arbitration are GRANTED. This civil action is hereby DISMISSED pending arbitration.”
“Finding no clear error, the Court adopts both R&Rs in their entirety. Accordingly, Union's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 27) is hereby GRANTED ... Bird's claims against Union and PAE are therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“PAE's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) is hereby GRANTED. Bird's claims against Union and PAE are therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Union's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT”
“Defendant's Motions to Dismiss must be granted. ... there was a dismissal with prejudice that constituted a final judgment on the merits; and the complaint in the dismissed case raised the same claims ... claim preclusion prohibits a litigant from asserting any claim ... that was or could have been raised”
“as the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Title VII and supplemental jurisdiction of the additional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a), the Court must deny Plaintiff's Motions to Remand.”
“the Court must deny Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. [proposed order improperly conditioned on refiling in state court, and movant misrepresented that defendant was unopposed]”
“the Court finds that Plaintiffs meet both the Rule 20 prerequisites for joinder. ... Because Plaintiffs' injuries were allegedly caused by a common set of policies or practices, the Court finds that Plaintiffs satisfy the same transaction test. ... Defendant's Motion to Sever is DENIED.”
“the Court finds that both Garcia and Jenkins have met the standard for permissive intervention. ... Garcia's Motion to Intervene is GRANTED. ... Jenkins's Motion to Intervene is similarly GRANTED.”
“Jenkins's Motion to Intervene is similarly GRANTED. The Clerk is likewise directed to file Plaintiff-Intervenor Jenkins's Complaint ... into this case as said party's pleading.”
“Because the Court has found that intervention is proper, Garcia's Motion to Consolidate is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Sony's Motion, Docket No. 30, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims against Sony are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... Plaintiff has introduced no evidence of an enforceable contract, implied or otherwise ... Plaintiff's copyright claims are also barred by the statute of limitations.”
“Because Ms. O'Hara has not adduced any new evidence and does not present any legal arguments that the Court has not already considered and rejected, her Motion must be denied. ... Ms. O'Hara's Motion simply revisits issues this Court has already decided ... The Court therefore DENIES her Motion for Reconsideration.”
“Defendants St. Joseph's et al.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and Counterclaim for Litigation Expenses (Doc. # 201) and Physician Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 203) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' state law claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants St. Joseph's et al.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Antitrust Claims (Doc. # 243) and Physician Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Antitrust Claims (Doc. # 248) are GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 552 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 53 days (N = 13).
Judge Ellison's sampled docket includes insurance and contract suits, civil-rights claims, employment discrimination, and personal-injury matters. In a 15-case 2023-2024 filing sample, 13 cases had ended and two remained pending when reviewed. Recent assignments also include immigration habeas petitions. These selected records describe case mix, not the judge's full caseload.
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 | 15 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 4 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 15 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 30 | 13 |
| Mar 2023 | 11 | 12 |
| Sep 2022 | 5 | 15 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 16 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 15 |
| Mar 2021 | 10 | 25 |
| Sep 2020 | 14 | 48 |
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 Ellison: 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 Ellison with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ellison, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ellison's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace