Robert Lee Pitman
How Judge Pitman rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pitman
Robert Lee Pitman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Pitman received a commission on December 19, 2014.
Judge Pitman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pitman, 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.
- RP_UpdatedPSO_6.23.26.pdf ↗
- Standing-Order-on-Review-of-1326-Release-Orders-under-18-USC-3145.pdf ↗
- standing-order-patent-cases-clean-version.pdf ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
the Clerk of Court shall—on that same day—notify the chambers of this Court of the motion.
“the Clerk of Court shall—on that same day—notify the chambers of this Court of the motion.”
Filing
An oral motion of this type will be considered as properly “fil[ing]” the motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3145.
“An oral motion of this type will be considered as properly ‘fil[ing]’ the motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3145.”
Filing
It is ORDERED, at the commencement of the action, counsel filing such an action shall
“It is ORDERED, at the commencement of the action, counsel filing such an action shall”
Conferences
The parties must mediate this case on or before ____________, and must file a report in accordance with Local Rule CV-88(g) within one week of the completion of mediation.
“The parties must mediate this case on or before ____________, and must file a report in accordance with Local Rule CV-88(g) within one week of the completion of mediation.”
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 Pitman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Texas Tribune's First Amendment suit, Pitman preliminarily enjoined the county's practice of closing magistration proceedings to the press and public and did not require the plaintiffs to post a bond.
“Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, (Dkt. 16), is GRANTED... Defendants are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from (a) enforcing their policy of closing all magistration proceedings under Article 15.17 to the press and public and (b) from closing any magistration proceeding... Plaintiffs are not required to post a security bond.”
In one summary judgment ruling, a plaintiff’s voter registration record and evidence of value in her contact information were enough to create a fact dispute over eligibility and injury, despite a vendor’s failure to match her entry. The court let her fraud claim proceed while dismissing the contract claim.
“Plaintiff has raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was eligible, such that she has standing to pursue her claims.”
Procedural preferences
In Butts's insurance suit, Pitman granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiff's claims without prejudice.
“Defendant's motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 3), is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Cautions
In a credit-reporting preemption dispute, the court granted a targeted injunction but declined the movant’s request for a broader declaration covering any information in consumer reports. Frame the requested relief around the specific federal subject matter at issue.
“The Court considers this Order as granting the MSJ only in part because the Court declines to find, as requested by CDIA, that § 1681t(b)(1)(E) preempts any State law ‘relating to information contained in consumer reports’ without regard to the specific content of § 1681c.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Laura Moore's No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 31) is hereby GRANTED.”
“Defendant Laura Moore' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 30) is hereby DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“Defendants Jeanette Zimmermann, Karin Harbers, Jessica Jackson, and Kelly Sandoval's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Qualified Immunity is hereby DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 42) is hereby GRANTED. All claims and causes of action not asserted in the Second Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice.”
“RRISD's Motion to Dismiss ... is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART ... Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against RRISD is DI[S]MISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff wishes to replead his § 1983 claim against RRISD, he must do so by January 16, 2026. ... Plaintiff's DJA claim for an alleged violation of Texas Family Code § 221.110 and retaliation claim under Texas Family Code § 221.110 are both DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Azaiez's Motion to Dismiss ... is GRANTED; therefore, Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Azaiez in his official capacity is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Plaintiff's ultra vires claims may only proceed based on ¶¶ 66a-f, i, and j-l of his First Amended Complaint.”
“Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, (Dkt. 16), is GRANTED... Defendants are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from (a) enforcing their policy of closing all magistration proceedings under Article 15.17 to the press and public and (b) from closing any magistration proceeding... Plaintiffs are not required to post a security bond.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 20), is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 64), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART... Insofar as Plaintiffs plead a Procedural Due Process claim, that claim is WITHDRAWN, and Defendants' motion to dismiss those claims is MOOT. The motion to dismiss is DENIED as to all other claims.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 3), is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 57), is DENIED.”
“Defendant Chase Bank and Wells Fargo's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkts. 19, 21), are GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Villalon's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 7), is GRANTED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.”
“Because Plaintiff has not previously sought entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a), the instant motion must be and is hereby DENIED.”
“Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. 70), is GRANTED as follows”
“Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, (Dkt. 71), is DENIED”
“Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 6), is GRANTED”
“GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The ten Austin Division dockets reviewed include False Claims Act, civil-rights, criminal, and patent matters. This is an illustrative sample rather than a complete census of Judge Pitman's caseload.
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 8 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 18 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 16 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 12 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 7 |
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 Pitman: 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 Pitman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pitman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pitman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace