J. Scott Hacker
How Judge Hacker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion he prunes claim-by-claim and defendant-by-defendant rather than dismissing wholesale: in a single civil-rights case he recommended dismissing the municipal Section 1983 / ADA-discrimination / Section 504 theories against the county while preserving the individual-officer excessive-force claim and the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, and granting leave to amend. A plaintiff who pleads a viable individual-capacity or accommodation theory can survive even where the entity-liability theories fail.
“he recommended denying dismissal of (1) Plaintiffs' Section 1983 excessive-force claim against Galvan and (2) their ADA failure-to-accommodate claim against Hidalgo County. ... He also recommended granting Plaintiffs leave to amend all claims against Hidalgo County.”
He reserves Rule 11 sanctions for genuine bad faith and will not penalize counsel for the practical difficulties of cross-border (U.S.-Mexico) discovery; where counsel made reasonable efforts to secure a visa-barred witness's testimony and the witness did not perjure herself, he recommends denying sanctions and fee-shifting the cost of defending the motion onto the movant.
“there does not seem to be a good-faith basis supporting Defendant Pena's motion. Therefore, Plaintiff should not have to bear the costs of responding.”
Procedural preferences
His M&Rs are routinely adopted: in the McAllen Division, district judges (here Drew B. Tipton) adopt them on plain-error review when no party objects, so a litigant who wants substantive review of his recommendation MUST file timely, specific written objections under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) within 14 days -- otherwise only plain error is reviewed. When a party does object, the district judge reviews de novo (as Senior Judge Kazen did in Sarmiento).
“The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. ... No party filed an objection. As a result, review is straightforward: plain error. ... No plain error appears.”
Cautions
A 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition that is filed outside the AEDPA one-year limitations window will be recommended for dismissal as time-barred with prejudice, and he will recommend denying a certificate of appealability at the same time -- so a state prisoner must watch the AEDPA clock and, if dismissed, has no automatic appeal path.
“recommended that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 1), be denied as time-barred and that the case be dismissed ... Judge Hacker further recommended that this Court deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Judge Hacker made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Immediate Possession, (Dkt. No. 25), be granted. ... (2) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Immediate Possession, (Dkt. No. 25), is GRANTED. [Order Accepting M&R, signed Drew B. Tipton, 2025-09-15]”
“Judge Hacker made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Immediate Possession, (Dkt. No. 13), be GRANTED. ... (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Immediate Possession, (Dkt. No. 13), is GRANTED. [Order Accepting M&R, signed Drew B. Tipton, 2025-09-20]”
“Judge Hacker ... recommended that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 1), be denied as time-barred and that the case be dismissed ... (2) Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 1), is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. [Order Accepting M&R, signed Drew B. Tipton, 2025-03-03]”
“Judge Hacker further recommended that this Court deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability ('COA'). ... (3) the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this matter.”
“Judge Hacker ... recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, (Dkt. No. 25), be granted ... (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, (Dkt. No. 25), is GRANTED. [Order Accepting M&R, signed Drew B. Tipton, 2025-06-06]”
“Judge Hacker ... recommended that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Hidalgo County and Deputy Justin Galvan's, (Dkt. No. 12), be granted in part. ... (2) Defendants Hidalgo County and Deputy Justin Galvan's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 12), is GRANTED in part. The following claims against Hidalgo County are DISMISSED without prejudice: a. Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims; b. Plaintiffs' ADA claim based on disability discrimination; and c. Plaintiffs' Section 504 claims. [adopted Drew B. Tipton, 2025-07-21]”
“Judge Hacker ... recommended granting the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant City of Edcouch, (Dkt. No. 13), and dismissing all claims against it ... (2) Defendant City of Edcouch's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 13), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims against the City of Edcouch are DISMISSED without prejudice. [adopted Drew B. Tipton, 2025-07-21]”
“The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Defendant Pena's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Dkt. 65) ... Defendant Pena's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Dkt. 65) is DENIED [adopted de novo by George P. Kazen over Pena's objection, 2016-07-25]”
“The Magistrate Judge recommends ... awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees incurred in defense of that motion. ... Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is GRANTED.”
“the conclusions in United States Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker's Report and Recommendation are hereby adopted by this Court. Respondent's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED [Order Adopting R&R, signed Randy Crane, 2019-12-03]”
“Petitioner's 2254 petition is DENIED, and this civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction”
“A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.”
In a prisoner civil-rights action, Hacker recommended sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The district judge adopted the recommendation without objection and closed the case. Prejudice was not stated in the order.
In a prisoner civil action, Hacker recommended sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), and the district judge adopted the recommendation without objection. Prejudice was not stated.
“the conclusions in United States Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker's Report and Recommendation are hereby adopted. The petition is DENIED, and this civil action is DISMISSED [Order Adopting R&R, signed Randy Crane, 2026-03-31]”
“A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.”
“the application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED, and the Court CERTIFIES that the appeal of this case is not taken in good faith [Order Adopting Amended R&R, 2024-03-18]”
Put Judge Hacker's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Hacker actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Hacker's own signed orders and cites them.