🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Ignacio Torteya III

United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas magistrate 6 signed orders read

How Judge Torteya decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Premises-liability defendants win on constructive knowledge when the plaintiff offers no temporal evidence -- how long the hazard existed. A theory that a puddle 'may have' formed is not enough.

“An allegation implying that a puddle may have formed under a cold bottle of water is not enough to impute constructive knowledge.”

Procedural preferences

Expects employment-discrimination plaintiffs to have exhausted administrative remedies and to back claims with record evidence; conclusory assertions without supporting evidence will not reach a jury.

“The Court finds that Guzman has produced no evidence that he has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his retaliation claim. Without supporting evidence, he cannot proceed to a trier of fact.”

On a motion to remand he looks to the face of the state-court petition for amount-in-controversy; a plaintiff who pleads above an expedited-action monetary limit and does not bindingly stipulate to less keeps the case in federal court.

“it is facially apparent from Plaintiff's Original Petition that his claims are likely to exceed $75,000”

Cautions

In Section 1983 suits, municipal and official-capacity liability collapses without an underlying constitutional violation by the individual officer -- he dismisses derivative Monell/official-capacity claims once the predicate claim fails.

“We have stated time and again that '[w]ithout an underlying constitutional violation, an essential element of municipal liability is missing.'”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Cruz v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC
1:20-cv-00042 · 2021-06-10
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“it is recommended that the Court: (1) GRANT Defendant's Motion; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.”

Gonzales v. Willacy County Sheriff's Department and Jail
1:21-cv-00125 · 2023-08-01
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“it is recommended that the Court: (1) GRANT Defendants' Motions (Dkt. Nos. 80, 84); (2) DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims against the defendants”

Dave v. Laird
1:20-cv-00209 · 2022-07-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“it is recommended that the Court GRANT Defendants' Motion. Dkt. No. 82. Additionally, for the reasons provided above it is recommended that the Court DISMISS all claims against Detective Rodriguez and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.”

Mares v. National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 160
1:25-cv-00069 · 2025-12-22
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“it is recommended that the Court: (1) GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 19]; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.”

Guzman v. Sam's Club
1:21-cv-00192 · 2022-08-05
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons above, it is recommended that Defendant's Motion be GRANTED.”

Salinas v. Martin
1:17-cv-00103 · 2017-08-07
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion lacks merit and should be denied.”

Alexander v. Lumpkin
1:22-cv-00002 · 2023-01-10

His own R&R on a 28 U.S.C. 2254 state-habeas petition (aggravated sexual assault of a child conviction). Respondent's motion for summary judgment recommended GRANTED, petition recommended DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and COA declined. In 2254/2255 review the respondent's 'motion for summary judgment' is the procedural vehicle for adjudicating the petition rather than a contested adversarial dispositive motion. The recommendation states: 'it is recommended that the Court: (1) GRANT Respondent's Motion; (2) DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Alexander's Petition; (3) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to close this case; and (4) DECLINE to issue a certificate of appealability.'

Sayas v. United States
1:21-cv-00061 · 2022-03-31

His own R&R on a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate (federal methamphetamine conviction). The United States' motion for summary judgment recommended GRANTED, all 2255 claims dismissed, COA declined. In post-conviction review the respondent's summary-judgment motion is the vehicle for adjudicating the petition, the same as in Alexander. The recommendation states: 'it is recommended that the Court: (1) GRANT the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) DISMISS all of the claims contained in Sayas's 2255 Motion and supporting supplements; (3) DECLINE to issue a certificate of appealability; and (4) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to close this case.'

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Because he primarily serves as a referral magistrate, the available case-level records do not support a reliable population caseload or nature-of-suit mix.

Put Judge Torteya's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Torteya actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Torteya's own signed orders and cites them.