Miguel A. Torres
How Judge Torres rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Torres
Miguel A. Torres has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the El Paso Division of the Western District of Texas since 2013. He graduated from the University of Texas School of Law and previously worked as an assistant federal public defender in El Paso. He was reappointed to another eight-year term in 2021.
Judge Torres's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Torres, 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-Local-Court-Rule-CV-16ef-Pretrial-Filings-010920.pdf ↗
- Standing-Order-On-Pretrial-Deadlines-010920.pdf ↗
Key rules
Filing
For civil jury trials before Judge Torres, file the Local Rule CV-16(e)-(f) pretrial information at least 14 days before jury selection unless the court orders otherwise.
“no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of jury selection.”
Filing
For those civil jury trial filings, complete the specified pretrial information jointly in one document.
“The following information shall be completed jointly by the parties in one document,”
Filing
In covered civil cases, jointly file a Case Management Report within 45 days after any defendant appears, including by removal.
“Additionally, within forty-five (45) days after the appearance of any defendant, which includes the filing of a notice of removal, the parties shall jointly develop and file a Case Management Report.”
Conferences
In covered civil cases, confer under Rule 26(f) within 45 days after any defendant appears, including by removal.
“Within forty-five (45) days after the appearance of any defendant, which includes the filing of a notice of removal, the parties shall confer in accordance with Rule 26(f)”
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 Torres decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Serros's Social Security appeal, Torres distinguished objective medical evidence an ALJ could interpret from raw medical data and recommended affirming the disability decision.
“Objective medical evidence, which ALJs are permitted to interpret, is described as medical evidence 'where the extent of functional loss and its effects on job performance would be apparent even to a lay person.'”
Procedural preferences
In Vega's civil-rights suit, Torres recommended different outcomes for the officers' dismissal motions: he would allow excessive-force claims against Martinez and Chacon to proceed but dismiss that claim against Arias.
“The Court will RECOMMEND Defendants Martinez and Chacon's Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims of excessive force be DENIED. The Court will further RECOMMEND Defendant Arias's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim of excessive force be GRANTED.”
Cautions
In Morales v. Kijakazi, he found that vocational-expert testimony alone did not establish that the claimant's former administrative-assistant job counted as past relevant work. The missing evidence concerned whether she had held that job long enough to learn it; the disability decision was vacated and remanded.
“The ALJ's sole reliance on the vocational expert's testimony is not substantial evidence that Plaintiff's past work as an administrative assistant is past relevant work.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The decision of the Commissioner will be REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings.”
“The Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 26, 27, 32) be DENIED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims of excessive force against Defendant Martinez and Defendant Chacon. The Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss be GRANTED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of claims for unlawful search and seizure and unlawful/false arrest claims against Defendants Martinez, Arias, and Chacon; dismissal of a claim of excessive force against Defendant Arias; and dismissal of claims of a false police report and judicial deception against Defendants Martinez, Arias, and Chacon.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED, and that the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“the Court ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“the Court recommends AFFIRMING the case.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
Section 1915(e)(2) in-forma-pauperis prescreening recommendation to dismiss a pro se collateral attack on a state eviction judgment under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and to deny a motion to appoint counsel as moot; the district judge modified the recommended dismissal from with prejudice to without prejudice. An administrative screening order, not a party-motion ruling.
Recommendation to deny a pro se plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis after finding his reported income and $20,000 in savings did not show undue hardship for the filing fee. An administrative screening recommendation, not a party-motion ruling.
“It is therefore ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be, and it is hereby, AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits will be AFFIRMED.”
“It is HEREBY ORDERED that ‘Plaintiff's First Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint’ (ECF No. 10), construed as a motion for leave to amend, is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s ‘Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition or in the Alternative Dismiss in Favor of Arbitration’ (ECF No. 14) be GRANTED IN PART with respect to compelling arbitration.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Torres's caseload is dominated by criminal-duty matters, including border-crossing complaints, pretrial detention hearings, and prisoner or treaty-transfer proceedings. His smaller civil docket consists largely of Social Security disability appeals, many handled by consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), along with occasional consumer-protection and federal labor-enforcement cases.
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 Torres: 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 Torres with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Torres, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Torres's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace