Nelva Gonzales Ramos
How Judge Ramos rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ramos
Nelva Gonzales Ramos is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Ramos received a commission on August 4, 2011.
Judge Ramos's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Ramos'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 Ramos decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hernandez's civil-rights suit, Ramos denied unit director Pena's qualified-immunity motions because a jury could find that his conduct or inaction failed to exercise professional judgment amid disputed facts about facility supervision.
“Because a jury could reasonably find that Defendant Pena's actions or failure to act constituted a failure to exercise professional judgment, Pena's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment on his qualified immunity defense (D.E. 104) is DENIED.”
In Navarrete v. TA Dedicated, Ramos adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted CFI partial summary judgment. She dismissed the direct-negligence claims against CFI under the Texas admission rule after CFI stipulated to vicarious liability for its driver.
“The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Plaintiff's direct negligence claims against CFI are precluded because CFI has stipulated to vicarious liability.”
In Nexpera v. Sage Enviro Tech, Ramos denied both sides’ requests for preliminary trade-secret relief without prejudice. She found the record did not identify and support the claimed technology clearly enough to show likely success.
“The parties may have seen the body, but they have not presented its evidence to the Court.”
Procedural preferences
In Pelko v. Perales, she overruled objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation because they repeated parts of the plaintiff's complaint without identifying a particular error in the recommendation's reasoning. She adopted the recommendation after review.
“Plaintiff's objections are merely a partial reiteration of his complaints and do not address the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge. An objection must point out with particularity the alleged error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis. ... The objections are OVERRULED.”
In Aiello's prisoner-rights case, Ramos construed the plaintiff's pro se request for dispositive relief as a summary-judgment motion, then denied it because he had not proved the elements needed for that relief.
“This principle requires the Court to treat Plaintiff's motion for dispositive relief as a summary judgment motion by process of elimination. ... The motion (D.E. 46) fails ... because it is not sufficient to prove up the matters necessary for Plaintiff to obtain dispositive relief.”
Cautions
In Pelko v. Perales, Ramos adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, dismissed Pelko’s individual-capacity claims against Perales and Villareal with prejudice as frivolous or failing to state a claim, and counted the dismissal as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
“Perales and Villareal in their individual capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice as ... dismissal counts as a ‘STRIKE’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Pena's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment on his qualified immunity defense (D.E. 104) is DENIED.”
“The pleadings and the summary judgment evidence show that there are fact issues as to whether Defendant Pena's conduct was objectively unreasonable, thereby precluding summary judgment on qualified immunity and further precluding a dismissal of this case.”
“the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Dispositive Motion (D.E. 46) is DENIED.”
“the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for temporary injunctive relief (D.E. 14), is DENIED.”
“the amended motion for summary judgment (D.E. 31) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Final judgment will be entered in favor of the individual Plaintiffs as to Count II of the Amended Complaint and this case is otherwise dismissed without prejudice.”
“the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge (D.E. 69). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS CFI's partial motion for summary judgment (D.E. 37). Plaintiff's direct negligence claims against CFI are therefore DISMISSED.”
Prisoner civil-rights case. Adopting MJs Julie K. Hampton's M&Rs after overruling objections, Ramos dismissed the action on PLRA initial screening (28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)/1915A) as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim, with prejudice, and counted it as a Section 1915(g) 'STRIKE'. The dismissal is sua sponte screening, with no merits party motion. The order also denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment (D.E. 23) as premature: a procedural denial. The order states: 'all of Plaintiff's claims ... are DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim for relief. ... This action is DISMISSED in its entirety.'
“the Court GRANTS CBC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This action is DISMISSED.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART the motion for summary judgment (D.E. 4) and ORDERS that Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice as time-barred and on their merits ... The Court DENIES IN PART the motion with respect to Defendant's counterclaim for judgment of foreclosure.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART all of the issues presented by the Motions to Dismiss (D.E. 13, 15) that were previously taken under advisement.”
“the ‘Defendant, State of Texas' Motion to Dismiss’ (D.E. 22) is GRANTED and the State of Texas is DISMISSED from this action.”
“Bustos’s motion for summary judgment (D.E. 12) is GRANTED IN PART, the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (D.E. 15) is DENIED IN PART, and the Commissioner’s denial of supplemental security income is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further consideration.”
“the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 20) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 300 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 66 days (N = 15).
Judge Ramos's sampled Corpus Christi docket includes Social Security review, insurance and contract disputes, maritime and premises-liability cases, removal disputes, and criminal matters. In a targeted 15-case 2023-2024 filing sample, ten cases had ended and five remained pending when reviewed. The selected records illustrate case mix without measuring the 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 | 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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 6 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 8 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Ramos: 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 Ramos with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ramos, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ramos's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace