David Alan Ezra
How Judge Ezra rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Ezra decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Preliminary-injunction analysis turns on the required factors and the legal record presented, including federal-preemption issues in challenges to state enforcement.
“Having considered the parties' briefing and the relevant law, the Court will preliminarily enjoin Defendants from enforcing SB 4.”
Procedural preferences
On motions to dismiss, the court addresses claims separately, preserving adequately pleaded claims while dismissing deficient ones.
“Defendant ACC's Partial Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Dkt. # 12.) ... The Motion is DENIED as to Hellman's retaliation claim.”
Cautions
Emergency requests to stay state-court proceedings must satisfy the governing stay factors; urgency alone does not warrant federal intervention.
“It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner Natin Paul's Emergency Application for a Stay of the State Trial Court's Criminal Contempt Order (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Mark Lane's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 83) as the opinion of the Court and GRANTS the SEC's Motion for Final Judgment and Remedies Against Defendant Jaitley. (Dkt. # 79.)”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner Natin Paul's Emergency Application for a Stay of the State Trial Court's Criminal Contempt Order (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.”
“Defendant ACC's Partial Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Dkt. # 12.) ... The Motion is DENIED as to Hellman's retaliation claim.”
“Having considered the parties' arguments, including those in writing, the evidence presented, and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS the United States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction for the reasons that follow. (Dkt. # 5.)”
“Having considered the parties' briefing and the relevant law, the Court will preliminarily enjoin Defendants from enforcing SB 4.”
“the Court -- for reasons that follow -- GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion as to their First Amendment claims and GRANTS the motion in part as to their Section 230 claims. Defendant Colmenero is preliminarily ENJOINED from enforcing H.B. 1181.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 36)”
“DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 37)”
“the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. # 61) and GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss (Dkt. ## 30, 31, 33)”
“GRANTS the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 52)”
“DENIES Quam's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 53)”
“DENIES Pro Se Defendant Eric Hoppe's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 42)”
“DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Counts 1, 2 and 3 remain.”
“Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, GRANTING Plaintiff $233,973 in attorney’s fees and $11,394.30 in costs.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed Austin and San Antonio matters are diverse, while the newest filings are dominated by 2026 immigration-detention habeas petitions. Timing observations therefore come from terminated civil cases filed from 2021 through 2024; the roughly twenty-six reviewed dockets are not a complete census.
Draft for Judge Ezra with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ezra, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ezra's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace