Elizabeth S. Chestney
How Judge Chestney rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Chestney
Elizabeth S. Chestney has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the San Antonio Division of the Western District of Texas since 2017. She earned a law degree from the University of Texas School of Law and a master's degree in judicial studies from Duke University School of Law. Before joining the bench, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks and practiced labor and employment law in Austin.
Judge Chestney's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Chestney'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 Chestney decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Criswell and Neal's case against Frost Bank, Chestney recommended compelling individual arbitration but denying the bank's other requested relief; the district judge adopted that disposition.
“Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Defendant's request to compel individual arbitration and DENIED in all other respects.”
In Navarro's consolidated wage-and-contract suits, Chestney recommended denying New Leaf's summary judgment motions on the FLSA claims; the district judge overruled objections and accepted that recommendation.
“New Leaf's objections... are overruled, and the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Court DENY New Leaf's motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' FLSA claims.”
Procedural preferences
In Brauckmiller's suit against the university, Chestney recommended partial dismissal of the employment claims; the district judge adopted the recommendation in part and left the Title VII race and sex discrimination claims pending.
“the Court ADOPTS IN PART, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, and Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART... the only claims that survive for now are Brauckmiller's Title VII race and sex discrimination claims...”
Cautions
In Parsell's FCRA case, Chestney recommended denying both sides' summary judgment motions after finding a jury should decide whether the credit union's investigation was reasonable. The district judge later granted the plaintiff's motion in part.
“Having considered the parties’ motions, as well as the responses and replies thereto, the governing law, and summary-judgment record, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff Ann Marie Parsell’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [#102] be DENIED and that First Tech Federal Credit Union’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#105] be DENIED.”
In Felan’s excessive force suit, Chestney recommended granting the officer qualified immunity because the plaintiff did not identify clearly established law governing the alleged conduct; she did not resolve whether his constitutional rights were violated.
“The District Court should grant Constable Przybylski’s motion for summary judgment under the second prong of the qualified-immunity defense. Because Mr. Felan cannot show that Constable Przybylski violated clearly established law, the District Court need not reach the issue of whether Mr. Felan’s constitutional rights were violated.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Defendant's request to compel individual arbitration and DENIED in all other respects.”
“First Tech's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 105) is DENIED, and Parsell's motion for partial summary judgment on liability (ECF No. 102) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Parsell's motion for partial summary judgment on liability (ECF No. 102) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court concludes that Parsell is entitled to summary judgment on her claim that First Tech violated the FCRA by failing to conduct an investigation in response to any of the first five ACDVs... The motion is denied in all other respects.”
“New Leaf's objections... are overruled, and the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Court DENY New Leaf's motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' FLSA claims.”
“the Court ADOPTS IN PART, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, and Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART... the only claims that survive for now are Brauckmiller's Title VII race and sex discrimination claims...”
In this Chapter 13 bankruptcy appeal, the self-represented appellants neither paid the filing fee nor confirmed that they wished to proceed after Judge Chestney issued a show-cause order. She recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute, and the district judge adopted the recommendation. This was a court-initiated dismissal rather than a ruling on a party motion; the request to proceed without prepayment became moot.
In this self-represented civil-rights case concerning a utility pedestal and easement, Judge Chestney granted leave to proceed without prepayment of fees, denied appointment of counsel, and recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim. She found no state actor as to the private company, no plausible constitutional deprivation, and untimeliness. The district judge adopted the recommendation. This was statutory screening rather than a ruling on a party motion.
In this self-represented civil-rights case, the plaintiff sought federal supervision of state criminal proceedings and return of seized property. Judge Chestney recommended dismissal based on judicial immunity, lack of federal jurisdiction over the property claims, and failure to state a claim. Judge Jason Pulliam reviewed for clear error and adopted the recommendation. This was statutory screening rather than a ruling on a party motion.
“it is recommended that the District Court deny both motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction”
“it is recommended that the Petition [#1] be denied”
Grants in forma pauperis status and recommends dismissal of the pro se complaint under the screening statute for failure to state a claim.
“motion [#53] be GRANTED”
“motions [#50, #52] be DENIED”
“Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction [#2] be DENIED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Chestney sits in the San Antonio Division and receives civil referrals from Judges Xavier Rodriguez and Jason Pulliam. In cases handled with the parties' consent, she serves as the judge of record. The largest group reviewed consists of twenty completed Social Security appeals, alongside labor, employment, and consumer-finance matters.
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 Chestney: 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 Chestney with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Chestney, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Chestney's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace