Xavier Rodriguez
How Judge Rodriguez rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rodriguez
Xavier Rodriguez is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Rodriguez received a commission on August 1, 2003.
Judge Rodriguez's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Rodriguez, 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-in-Civil-Cases-Assigned-to-Judge-Xavier-Rodriguez.pdf ↗
- Proposed-Scheduling-Order-and-Rule-26f-Report.pdf ↗
- XR-Austin-Docket-Standing-Order-Referring-IFP-Motions-UPDATED.pdf ↗
Key rules
Filing
Any nongovernmental corporate party must file its Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Disclosure Statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court.
“Any nongovernmental corporate party must file its Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Disclosure Statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court.”
Conferences
If not already held, the parties must conclude the Rule 26(f) conference no later than 14 days from the date this Order is signed.
“If not already held, the parties must conclude the Rule 26(f) conference no later than 14 days from the date this Order is signed.”
Conferences
Unless attorneys reside in different cities, the Court expects that the Rule 26(f) conference will be conducted in a “face-to-face” session.
“Unless attorneys reside in different cities, the Court expects that the Rule 26(f) conference will be conducted in a ‘face-to-face’ session.”
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 Rodriguez decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Urdaneta Medina’s immigration-detention case, Rodriguez held that the petitioner’s established presence in the United States required an individualized hearing under the Fifth Amendment and the Mathews balancing test.
“because Petitioner is a person who had established a substantial presence in the United States before his detention, he possesses Fifth Amendment due process rights requiring an individualized hearing justifying his detention. The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test supports this conclusion.”
Procedural preferences
In Century Surety’s case, Rodriguez adopted an unopposed magistrate recommendation and granted the plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED.”
In a foreclosure default-judgment case, he checked jurisdiction, service, the pleaded contract and lien, and the requested relief despite the defendants’ failure to respond. A clerk’s entry of default did not itself supply the required merits showing.
“in considering any motion for default judgment, a court must examine jurisdiction, liability, and damages.”
Cautions
In Miranda v. Bexar County, he dismissed the municipal-liability claim because the complaint identified only two prior incidents without explaining how they were sufficiently similar to show a pattern. He denied leave to amend after the plaintiffs neither requested it nor identified further supporting facts.
“the Court GRANTS Defendant Bexar County's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24).”
In Escobedo’s case, Rodriguez granted two dismissal motions, dismissed the claims with prejudice, and barred new lawsuits against the same defendants concerning the August 2022 arrest.
“Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 10 and 11) are GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
In Roden’s civil-rights case, Rodriguez found that repeated allegations made the complaint harder to decipher under Rule 8.
“These repetitive allegations do not add to the clarity of the complaint; they merely add to the burden of deciphering Petitioner’s allegations and claims, in contravention of Rule 8(a).”
In Meditech’s patent suit, Rodriguez partly granted a pleading challenge with leave to amend and expressly reserved the merits of infringement and claim construction.
“Nothing in this Order decides the ultimate merits of Meditech’s infringement allegations or resolves any disputed claim construction.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment on limitations (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that McGee's motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules Civil Procedure (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.”
Judge Rodriguez adopted Judge Richard B. Farrer's recommendation and dismissed this self-represented litigant's civil-rights suit without prejudice for failure to prosecute, with failure to allege state action as an alternative ground. This was a court-initiated dismissal rather than a ruling on a party motion.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 58) is GRANTED. ... Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in Part (ECF No. 60) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant Bexar County's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24).”
“Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 100) is GRANTED. Counts One and Two of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 53) are DISMISSED.”
“Defendant Ryder Truck Rental's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. Plaintiff Amy Marr's claims against Defendant Ryder Truck Rental are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 10 and 11) are GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 12) is DENIED”
“Plaintiff’s motion to expedite her case (ECF No. 16) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s claims for Mandamus, under the APA, and under the Privacy Act are DISMISSED. Her FOIA claims are DISMISSED except insofar as they challenge the timeliness of Defendants’ determination on Saltkill’s August 4, 2025, FOIA request.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Mujuni Maliyamkono’s direct-negligence claims against Melton Truck Lines, Inc. (Counts III and IV in the Operative Complaint) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. His vicarious-liability claim against Melton Truck Lines, Inc. and his negligence claim against John Michael Warren remain pending.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The San Antonio docket reviewed is criminal-heavy and also includes patent cases and prominent civil matters, including an airport gate-allocation dispute and a Voting Rights Act challenge to Texas S.B. 1. The newest matters include a substantial group of Section 2241 immigration-detention petitions. This is an illustrative sample rather than a complete census.
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 | 2 | 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 Rodriguez: 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 Rodriguez with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rodriguez, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rodriguez's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace