David B. Fannin
How Judge Fannin rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Fannin
David B. Fannin serves as a United States magistrate judge for the Western District of Texas. Based in Alpine, he handles matters in the court’s Pecos Division.
Judge Fannin's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Fannin'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).
- 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 Fannin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hansard, Fannin recommended dismissing the individual § 1983 claims against school board defendants because the plaintiffs grouped them together without alleging each person's conduct; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“a §1983 plaintiff who alleges mistreatment at the hands of a group [must] describe with particularity the actions taken by each of them individually.”
In Waterbridge, Fannin recommended remand because the affidavits did not establish two LLC members' Louisiana citizenship on both the filing and removal dates.
“no affidavit affirms both Stephen and Robert Morris were Louisiana citizens on August 11, 2023 and September 15, 2023.”
Procedural preferences
In Hill v. City of Monahans, he recommended denying a pro se plaintiff leave to amend after the plaintiff filed an amended complaint without leave and failed to serve it. The district judge adopted that recommendation.
“Plaintiff yet again failed to serve his Complaint, which was filed without leave of Court”
In Waterbridge Texas Operating LLC v. Petro Guardian LLC, he denied a motion to strike an affidavit because an affidavit is not a pleading subject to Rule 12(f).
“affidavits are not pleadings, and thus not subject to Rule 12(f).”
Cautions
In Nasios v. U.S. Department of Defense, he recommended dismissing the complaint on screening because the asserted right to enlist in the military was not recognized by law. The district judge adopted the dismissal recommendation and modified the disposition to dismissal with prejudice.
“He asserts a right that the law simply does not recognize: entry into the Armed Forces.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Magistrate Judge Fannin recommends that the Court deny the motion in part and grant the motion in part ... Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing be DENIED. ... Qualified Immunity from George Hansard's 1983 claim be DENIED as to Defendant Zamora ... be GRANTED as to the School Board Defendants.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend [Doc. 15] is therefore DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for an Order Limiting Discovery and the Motion to Dismiss [Docs. 4 and 26] are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendants' Joint Renewed Motion to Dismiss is DENIED (Doc. 73).”
“the Magistrate recommended that the Court grant Nasio's IFP motion. The Court agrees. Nasio's IFP motion is GRANTED.”
“Petro Guardian has not met its burden to show Robert Morris was domiciled in Louisiana on August 11, 2023 and September 15, 2023. For this reason, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand be GRANTED.”
“it is ORDERED that the Motion to Strike is DENIED ... affidavits are not pleadings, and thus not subject to Rule 12(f).”
“the undersigned finds that Hemphill has not met his burden of demonstrating Weststar's proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reason is pretextual or unworthy of credence, or that Weststar possessed mixed motives in firing Hemphill. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Weststar's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED as to Hemphill's claims under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... For the reasons stated above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Weststar's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED on all claims. (Doc. 12).”
“After due consideration, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Villegas's Motion to Dismiss be DENIED. (Doc. 6). Additionally, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Villegas's Motion for Judgment be DENIED. (Doc. 6).”
“After due consideration, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Motion for MDS be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Doc. 10). Additionally, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. (Doc. 10).”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Motion for MDS be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Doc. 10).”
“This case is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge through a standing order of referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, and Appendix C of the Local Court Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. After due consideration, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Villalobos's Motion to Remand be GRANTED. (Doc. 6).”
“The Government’s Motion for Destruction shall be GRANTED IN PART. (Doc. 109).”
“For the reasons above, the Court RECOMMENDS Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that a CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WILL NOT ISSUE. (Doc. 98).”
“Based on the foregoing discussion, the Third Motion to Compel shall be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (Doc. 133).”
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 Fannin: 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 Fannin with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Fannin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Fannin's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace