Walter David Counts III
How Judge Counts rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Counts
Walter David Counts, III is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Counts received a commission on January 17, 2018.
Judge Counts's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Counts, 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.
- Standing-Order-on-Case-Management-072722.pdf ↗
- Standing-Discovery-Order-072720.pdf ↗
- Standing-Order-on-Number-of-Motions-for-Summary-Judgment-092321.pdf ↗
- Standing-Order-On-Certificate-Of-Conference-In-Motions-For-Continuance.pdf ↗
- 08242026_STANDING-ORDER-REGARDING-FILING-DOCUMENTS-UNDER-SEAL-AND-REDACTED-PUBLIC-VERSIONS.pdf ↗
Key rules
Motions
Unless otherwise directed by the Court, or permitted by law, a party may file no more than one motion for summary judgment in a single case.
“Unless otherwise directed by the Court, or permitted by law, a party may file no more than one motion for summary judgment in a single case.”
Discovery
This Order renders routine motions for discovery unnecessary and they will not be filed.
“This Order renders routine motions for discovery unnecessary and they will not be filed.”
Conferences
The Certificate of Conference shall state each party’s position regarding the motion.
“The Certificate of Conference shall state each party’s position regarding the motion.”
Sealing
The filing party shall file a publicly available, redacted version of any motion or pleading filed under seal within seven days.
“The filing party shall file a publicly available, redacted version of any motion or pleading filed under seal within seven days.”
Sealing
Exhibits that are nonconfidential in their entirety should not be filed under seal at all.
“Exhibits that are nonconfidential in their entirety should not be filed under seal at all.”
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).
- Standing Order Regarding Joint or Unopposed Request to Change Deadlines ↗
- Order Regarding Procedures for the Filing, Service and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- General Order Regarding Electronic Filing of Transcripts ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Attorney Admissions and CLE Requirements ↗
- Privacy Policy and Public Access to Electronic Files ↗
- Standing Order Regarding the Electronic Submission of Sealed Civil Documents ↗
How Judge Counts decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In McCully-Chapman's oil-and-gas contract suit, Counts denied Ovintiv's partial summary-judgment motion because genuine disputes of material fact remained for trial.
“Because these genuine disputes of material fact persist, summary judgment is off the table. The parties will proceed to trial... In other words, the Motion is DENIED.”
Procedural preferences
In Doe's suit against Midland County and individual defendants, Counts granted the plaintiff's motion for default judgment in part and denied it in part.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
In McCully-Chapman Exploration, Inc. v. Ovintiv USA, Inc., he declined to adopt a magistrate judge's report after intervening events made the underlying motion moot. He also denied that motion as moot.
“The Court will therefore DECLINE to adopt the Report and Recommendation as it is rendered MOOT. Defendant's underlying Motion is also DENIED AS MOOT.”
Cautions
In Young's product-liability suit, Counts adopted a recommendation granting LG Chem's motion to dismiss D&A Distribution's indemnification counterclaims without prejudice.
“LG Chem's motion to dismiss, is GRANTED. D&A Distribution's counterclaims for common law indemnification and statutory indemnification are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because these genuine disputes of material fact persist, summary judgment is off the table. The parties will proceed to trial... In other words, the Motion is DENIED.”
“The Court will therefore DECLINE to adopt the Report and Recommendation as it is rendered MOOT. Defendant's underlying Motion is also DENIED AS MOOT.”
“LG Chem's motion to dismiss, is GRANTED. D&A Distribution's counterclaims for common law indemnification and statutory indemnification are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“City of Midland's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Angelica Olivas' hostile work environment claim under the ADA and §1983 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants Criner and Midland County's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Juanita Doe's claims as to Criner and Midland County are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED.”
“the Court DENIES the parties' motions for summary judgment relating to the issue of good faith and willfulness. (Docs. 149, 152).”
“The Court cannot grant summary judgment finding Defendants willfully violated the FLSA without first finding that Defendants violated the FLSA. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 152).”
“PfP Industries, LLC's partial motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. PfP's motion is GRANTED as to Jackson's hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. PfP's motion is DENIED as to Jackson's claims of a FLSA collective action, discrimination under § 1981, and retaliation under § 1981 and Title VII.”
“OVERRULES the objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and DENIES the motion”
“in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer is DENIED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The twenty sampled civil dockets from 2021 provide a limited view of Judge Counts's district-court caseload rather than a complete census.
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 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, not for Judge Counts: 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 | 3,691 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,171 | 5.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,115 | 7.5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 366 | 14 months |
| Closed during trial | 39 | 30.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,691 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,440 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,823 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,633 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,178 | 8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,990 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,854 | 7.1 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 Counts with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Counts, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Counts's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace