Robert F. Castañeda
How Judge Castañeda rules, drawn from 6 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Castañeda decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Even when a default-judgment request is unopposed, Castañeda evaluates each damages category separately and excludes amounts that are not tied to a specific statutory violation.
“Judge Castañeda concludes that Plaintiff isn't entitled to the $145 in service fees that he demands... rather than entering a judgment for $50,047 as Plaintiff requests, Judge Castañeda instead recommends that the Court issue a judgment for $49,902.”
A Social Security claimant's showing that the ALJ violated her own procedural rules (here, HALLEX's evidence-window requirement) is not enough by itself to win a remand; what persuades is a concrete account of what missing evidence would have shown, not a generic assertion of harm.
“Her mere assertion that she was harmed because the ALJ did not have her complete medical records, without further explanation as to what the additional records would contain and how they might contribute to a different outcome, is not enough to establish prejudice.”
In a false-arrest Federal Tort Claims Act suit tried to the bench, split the government's liability incident-by-incident rather than ruling on the arrest as a single event: an earlier arrest and detention were lawful on the facts, but a later arrest and detention of the same plaintiff were not, and the case proceeded to trial on that narrower question, ending in a plaintiff's judgment of $402,000.
“the Court is of the opinion that Defendant’s motion should be GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s arrest on January 14th and his detention on January 19th, but that it should be DENIED as to Plaintiff’s arrest on January 15th and his detention from that time until he was ordered detained by the Magistrate Judge on January 19th.”
Procedural preferences
On in forma pauperis applications, insists on complete, sworn financial disclosure; answering every question "not applicable" or striking the penalty-of-perjury language will sink the application rather than being read charitably.
“the Court is unable to discern whether Plaintiff has no assets, or whether information concerning existing assets is simply being withheld... In light of Plaintiff's unwillingness to affirm his answers under penalty of perjury, the Court finds that it has additional cause to doubt his candor.”
Cautions
A non-lawyer parent or guardian may bring a minor's federal claim as the child's representative, but generally cannot litigate it pro se on the child's behalf; rather than dismissing outright, the Court gives a short stay to let the guardian find counsel.
“Davis has not identified any state or federal law justifying a departure from the common-law rule, such that his children's Section 1983 claims could be said to ‘belong’ to him... Thus, Davis has not met his burden to prove he should be permitted to plead and conduct his children's case pro se.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Judge Castaneda recommends that the District Court grant Defendant's motion, thereby reversing and remanding this cause to allow the Commissioner to conduct further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED.”
“For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED... The Court FURTHER ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to docket Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.”
“Judge Castañeda agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to $4,500 in damages for Defendant's alleged TCPA violations, $45,000 in damages for Defendant's alleged violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and $402 for filing fees... Judge Castañeda concludes that Plaintiff isn't entitled to the $145 in service fees that he demands... The Court thereby GRANTS ‘Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment’ (ECF No. 29) IN PART.”
“the Court cannot find that he has proven that he is unable to pay the costs of litigation where he has responded to each request for specific financial information simply by stating that the request is ‘not applicable.’”
“A plaintiff is not entitled to the appointment of counsel merely because, after considering the costs of litigation, he has determined that he would prefer that the Court bear his legal expenses. The Court therefore declines to appoint counsel.”
“the Court will grant a fourteen-day stay of the minors' claims, during which Davis may attempt to recruit counsel.”
“RECOMMENDS ‘Defendant Alejandra Najera’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss,’ ECF No. 25, be GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART;”
“RECOMMENDS ‘Defendant Ernesto Cantu’s Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 21 Motion to Dismiss,’ ECF No. 27, be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART;”
“RECOMMENDS ‘Defendant Jeffrey Cottrill’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss,’ ECF No. 28, be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART;”
“RECOMMENDS the ‘Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendants Mr. Frankie Gray and Dr. Dionel Waters,’ ECF No. 30, be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART;”
“RECOMMENDS Defendant ‘Brett Stidham’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss,’ ECF No. 32, be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART;”
“ORDERS Plaintiff Lance Davis’s ‘Motion for Leave to Amend,’ ECF No. 68, filed August 30, 2024 be STRICKEN;”
“ORDERS Plaintiff Lance Davis’s ‘Motion to Withdraw Pending Motion for Leave to Amend,’ ECF No. 98, filed December 17, 2025, is GRANTED;”
“ORDERS Plaintiffs Lance and Journey Davis’s ‘Opposed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint,’ ECF No. 99, filed December 17, 2025, is DENIED;”
“ORDERS Plaintiffs Lance and Journey Davis’s ‘Motion to Substitute Proposed Amended Complaint Attached to ECF No. 99,’ ECF No. 102, filed January 7, 2026, is DENIED;”
“ORDERS Plaintiffs Lance and Journey Davis’s ‘Second Opposed Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Exhibit in Support of Second Amended Complaint Attached to ECF No. 99,’ ECF No. 106, filed January 20, 2026, is DENIED;”
“ORDERS Plaintiffs Lance and Journey Davis’s ‘Notice and Motion for Judicial Notice of Corporate Status Evidence and Short Brief on Clark Factors (Eleventh Amendment),’ ECF No. 116, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The caseload observations come from the civil matters represented below and one criminal-duty case reviewed to confirm the nature of Judge Castañeda's direct assignments.
Draft for Judge Castañeda with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Castañeda, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Castañeda's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace