Richard W. Bennett
How Judge Bennett rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bennett
Richard W. Bennett has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas since April 22, 2024. He earned a B.A. from Texas Christian University in 1997 and a J.D. from Southern Methodist University in 2000. Before joining the bench, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in two Texas districts and as an attorney for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Judge Bennett's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bennett, 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
File original documents electronically; handing papers to the court or case manager does not file them.
“Counsel must file all original documents through the CM/ECF system. Handing documents to the court or Case Manager does not constitute filing of the documents.”
Discovery
Confer by phone or video on a discovery dispute before requesting a court conference.
“Only after counsel have conferred by telephone or video conference and are unable to reach agreement may any party request a conference with the court.”
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 Bennett decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Georgette L., omission of the claimant’s assistive-device needs was prejudicial because the vocational expert testified that a walker would preclude the identified work.
“Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 6) and DENIES Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10).”
In Atala, the arbitration agreement’s delegation clause required specific challenges to delegation; general fraud assertions were insufficient.
“The Arbitration Provision clearly and unmistakably evidences the parties delegated threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.”
Procedural preferences
In Collins, the request for an ex parte temporary restraining order failed the notice prerequisites of Rule 65(b)(1). A preliminary injunction remained for consideration after service.
“Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Hearing (ECF No. 2) be DENIED.”
In Moore, the court recommended allowing amendment because discovery and trial deadlines were distant and defendants would not suffer undue prejudice.
“Accordingly, the Court recommends Moore’s request for leave to amend be granted.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“NCISD’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 46) be GRANTED”
“State Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47) be GRANTED”
“State Defendants’ Third Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 48) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on Administrative Record against NCISD (ECF No. 49) be DENIED.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) be DENIED.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Hearing (ECF No. 2) be DENIED.”
Recommended dismissal without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to seek default judgment or voluntary dismissal as ordered. This court-initiated disposition is retained as context.
This is a sua sponte recommendation to dismiss corporate co-plaintiffs for lack of counsel, not a ruling on a party motion. It illustrates his handling of pro se litigants attempting to litigate on behalf of entities.
This order effects a plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1)(A) voluntary dismissal rather than a contested ruling.
“Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Thibeaux’s Motion to Effectuate Service of Summons and Complaint (ECF No. 20) be DISMISSED AS MOOT and the action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Remand (ECF No. 37) be DENIED. Further, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Exclude (ECF No. 33) and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 35) and Opposed Motions to Continue (ECF Nos. 39–40).”
Bennett recommended sua sponte dismissal for failure to timely serve the defendants under Rule 4(m) and failure to prosecute or comply with a show-cause order under Rule 41(b). No party motion was pending.
“Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Whitbeck’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36), the Fort Bend County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 39), the Fort Bend County Defendants’ Motion to Recognize Dismissal (ECF No. 40), the RMG Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41), and the FBISD Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 42) be GRANTED.”
“The Court also ORDERS that the FBISD Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 45) and the RMG Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 46) are DENIED.”
“there is no basis to strike or deny Moore’s sur-reply and the Court recommends the City’s Opposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Surreply (ECF No. 28) be denied.”
“the City and HPD’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) be GRANTED”
“Vargas’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) be GRANTED”
“Overstreet’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) be GRANTED”
“Lopez’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) be GRANTED”
“Majority Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) be GRANTED.”
“the Court also recommends Moore’s Opposed Motion for Joinder of Additional Party Plaintiff be denied and such state law claims be asserted in the appropriate forum.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS River’s Ex Parte Motion for Order Noting Default (ECF No. 101) be DENIED IN PART as to Contanda and Lloyd and be GRANTED IN PART as to all persons, firms, corporations, or entities who have not filed and presented claims and answers in this action.”
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 |
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 Bennett: 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 Bennett with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bennett, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bennett's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace