Nancy F. Atlas
How Judge Atlas rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Atlas no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Atlas
Nancy Friedman Atlas was a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Atlas received a commission on June 30, 1995. Judge Atlas assumed senior status on June 20, 2014 and retired on July 31, 2022.
How Judge Atlas decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Civelli's suit against Chase, Atlas denied dismissal because the complaint pleaded a factual basis for the discovery rule and did not show on its face that the claims were time-barred; she left Chase free to seek summary judgment on the evidence.
“A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted. ... Chase's Motion to Dismiss is denied, but the denial is without prejudice to Chase's right to file a motion for summary judgment that will require Plaintiffs to present evidence to support their allegations against Chase.”
In Flaming's prisoner civil-rights suit, Atlas found that conclusory assertions could not defeat summary judgment and dismissed the federal claims with prejudice after reviewing the record.
“the non-movant cannot avoid summary judgment simply by presenting 'conclusory allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation.'”
In Fire Protection Service's suit over life rafts, Atlas read the Texas Dealer Protection Act's equipment definition and specific exclusions as leaving the rafts potentially covered at the pleading stage.
“Generously construing FPS’s Complaint, as the law requires, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that Survitec’s life rafts do not fall within the Act’s coverage of ‘equipment.’”
Procedural preferences
In Gonzalez's prisoner suit, Atlas granted summary judgment because he had not completed both steps of the TDCJ grievance process before filing his claims.
“The Fifth Circuit has taken a 'strict approach' to the exhaustion requirement found in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), emphasizing that 'substantial compliance' with administrative remedy procedures is not sufficient to satisfy the PLRA. ... The motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 20) is GRANTED.”
In Flaming's prisoner suit, Atlas converted the defendants' Martinez Report into a summary judgment motion after the report asserted affirmative defenses.
“Because the Martinez Report asserts affirmative defenses, the Court converted it to a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendants [Doc. # 29], who are deemed to have answered.”
After dismissing Flaming's federal claims, Atlas declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed his state negligence claims without prejudice.
“Where a court dismisses a party's federal claims, the 'general rule' is to dismiss any pendent state law claims without prejudice so that the plaintiff may re-file his claims in the appropriate state court. ... this Court elects to follow the general rule and to dismiss the pendent state law claims without prejudice.”
Cautions
In Thompson's § 2254 case, Atlas held that the challenge to his theft conviction was untimely and that unsupported allegations about denial of mandatory supervision did not establish a federal constitutional claim; she dismissed the petition and denied a certificate of appealability.
“In summary, Thompson cites no Supreme Court authority or constitutional provision in support of his claim that officials wrongfully denied him early release on mandatory supervision without due process.”
In Flaming's prison medical-care case, Atlas found that his disagreement with the treatment provided did not state an Eighth Amendment claim.
“Thus, Flaming’s disagreement with the level of medical treatment that he received does not state a claim under the Eighth Amendment.”
In the Schoenmann cargo-loss case, Atlas allowed the Carmack Amendment claim to proceed but dismissed the related misrepresentation and declaratory-judgment claims, and disallowed attorney fees and consequential damages.
“Plaintiffs may proceed with claims arising under the Carmack Amendment, but their misrepresentation and declaratory judgment claims are dismissed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Chase's Motion to Dismiss is denied, but the denial is without prejudice to Chase's right to file a motion for summary judgment that will require Plaintiffs to present evidence to support their allegations against Chase. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants JPMorgan Chase Securities, LLC, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 21] is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the Sonic Dealerships' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 66] is DENIED.”
“Because the Court cannot conclude that FPS fails to state a claim under the Dealer Protection Act, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Survitec Survival Products, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ... [Doc. # 5], is DENIED.”
“The defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. # 9) is GRANTED. ... This case is DISMISSED as moot.”
“The motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 20) is GRANTED[.] The complaint is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure of the plaintiff to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by exhausting all available administrative remedies.”
“The respondent's motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 10] is GRANTED and the petitioner's cross-motion in response [Doc. # 11] is DENIED. The federal habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.”
“The respondent's motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 10] is GRANTED and the petitioner's cross-motion in response [Doc. # 11] is DENIED.”
“The defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 24] is GRANTED, in part. The claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are DISMISSED with prejudice. The state law claims for negligence are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“The plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order [Doc. # 1] is DENIED as moot.”
“BNSF Railway Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 13] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs may proceed with claims arising under the Carmack Amendment, but their misrepresentation and declaratory judgment claims are dismissed. In addition, Plaintiffs may not seek to recover attorneys' fees or consequential damages. The Court does not rule on whether Plaintiffs' damages, if any, should be measured by the fair market value of their products at the point of origin or at the point of destination.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 198 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 47 days (N = 4).
- Case-level sample of Judge Atlas's Houston-division civil docket (2018-2019 terminated cases the index reliably returns).
- Nature-of-suit mix observed: Fair Labor Standards Act, consumer credit, other-contract, products/personal-liability, construction-contract: plus, across the eight published orders read, prisoner civil-rights (1983), AEDPA 2254 habeas, immigration mandamus, securities/breach-of-trust, FLSA collective, and Carmack-Amendment cargo: a long-tenured Houston general civil docket.
- Most of these 2018-2019 cases terminated by settlement or stipulated dismissal (e.g. Galbraith, Kleypas, Perez), so their entry timelines carry no dispositive ruling to ground.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Atlas was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2021.
| 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 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.
A historical record
Judge Atlas no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.