Dustin M. Howell
How Judge Howell rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Howell
Dustin M. Howell has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas since 2021. He earned a law degree from Texas Tech University School of Law and previously served as a Texas state district judge in Travis County. Earlier, he practiced trial and appellate law and served as an assistant solicitor general of Texas.
Judge Howell's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Howell, 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.
- Howell-Current-Scheduling-Order-To-Post.pdf ↗
- Standing-Order-Regarding-Courtroom-Opportunities-for-Newer-Attorneys-090221.pdf ↗
Key rules
Conferences
The parties shall complete ADR in compliance with Local Rule CV-88 by ___________.
“The parties shall complete ADR in compliance with Local Rule CV-88 by ___________.”
Conferences
A motion objecting to ADR must be filed not later than 60 days before that deadline.
“A motion objecting to ADR must be filed not later than 60 days before that deadline.”
Trial
Where the Court is inclined to rule on the briefs, a representation that the argument would be handled by a Newer Attorney will weigh in favor of holding a hearing.
“Where the Court is inclined to rule on the briefs, a representation that the argument would be handled by a Newer Attorney will weigh in favor of holding a hearing.”
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 Howell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
A request for an injunction must rest on a pleaded substantive cause of action; seeking only extra time to avoid foreclosure did not supply an independent claim for equitable relief.
“Without any claim to support his request for equitable relief, Robledo's request for injunctive relief is without merit.”
In Coffey, Howell rejected a request for discovery where the plaintiff identified no specific discovery needed to evaluate a qualified-immunity defense.
“Given that Coffey has not identified any specific discovery needed to evaluate the qualified-immunity defense and such discovery is generally disfavored, the Court rejects Coffey's invitation to deny the Burnet Defendants' motion on this basis.”
A pending remand motion does not automatically justify pausing merits briefing; he denied a stay where jurisdiction would be resolved first regardless and the movants showed only their own litigation expense.
“However, in the face of Broadnax's opposition and in the absence of any countervailing authority, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 13), is GRANTED... Wescott's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Texmex Rainey's Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support, (Dkt. 10), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART... intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. 1981 claim remains pending before this Court.”
“Blakely's amended motion to dismiss Skylyne's civil-conspiracy claim against him, Dkt. 20, is GRANTED.”
“Blakely's motion to dismiss, Dkt. 11, is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“ABL's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 13, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel (Dkt. 62) is DENIED.”
“the undersigned issues the following report and recommendation recommending that the District Court grant Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismiss as moot Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“...and dismiss as moot Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.”
Judge Howell recommended approving the parties' settlement agreement, and Judge James R. Nowlin adopted the recommendation and approved the settlement. This was settlement approval rather than a contested merits ruling.
During statutory screening of this self-represented plaintiff's claims, Judge Howell recommended dismissal with prejudice and denial of all pending motions as moot. The plaintiff objected, and Judge Albright conducted fresh review and adopted the recommendation. This was a court-initiated screening disposition rather than a ruling on a party motion.
During statutory screening, Judge Howell recommended dismissal with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. No party objected, and Judge Albright reviewed for clear error and adopted the recommendation. This was a court-initiated screening disposition rather than a ruling on a party motion.
Judge Howell recommended dismissal without prejudice after the self-represented plaintiff failed to provide a court-ordered more definite statement and did not respond after mailed notice was returned. The recommendation concerned failure to prosecute and comply with a court order rather than a pending party motion. The available record does not establish whether the district judge adopted it.
“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell, (Dkt. 16), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 10) is GRANTED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“After reviewing the Report, the Court ADOPTS Judge Howell's recommendations and DENIES Defendant Safe & Green Holdings Corp.'s (‘SG Holdings’) Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 11.)”
“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. 43), is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Howell sits in the Austin Division and receives referrals from Judges Robert Pitman and Alan D. Albright and Senior Judges David Alan Ezra and James R. Nowlin. He also issues recommendations in criminal matters; that criminal-duty work is not represented in the civil motion figures.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 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 Howell: 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 Howell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Howell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Howell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace