; ; ; ;

=== Standing-Order-Immigration-Case-Updates-DCG.pdf ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION HON. DAVID C. GUADERRAMA § § § § § § ALL IMMIGRATION HABEAS CASES STANDING ORDER TO PROVIDE STATUS UPDATES IN IMMIGRATION HABEAS CASES In recent months, individuals in immigration detention have filed hundreds of petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Western District of Texas.1 While the Court considers the merits of each petition, intervening developments in the petitioner’s removal proceedings can alter the analytical framework of the case, or even moot the petition entirely.2 To rule intelligently and efficiently on each petition, the Court relies on the parties to provide notice when any such development occurs. 1 See, e.g., Huanaga-Luna v. Bondi, No. 3:26-CV-00462-DCG, 2026 WL 822444, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2026) (“Since June 2025, the undersigned Judge has received roughly 105 habeas corpus petitions from immigration detainees.”). See also, e.g., Longoria Mendoza v. Noem, No. 5:26-CV-0728-JKP, 2026 WL 809441, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2026) (“The Court could not agree more that the federal courts lack staff, time, and resources to handle the flood of habeas cases resulting from the current emphasis on immigration detention and removal.”). 2 See, e.g., Berrezueta v. Decker, No. 1:20-CV-10688, 2021 WL 601649, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2021) (noting that “[r]elease from custody generally renders a habeas petition moot”). See also, e.g., Zamudio Sanchez v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-00403-DCG, 2026 WL 596133, at *16 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2026) (stating that “the Court has based its analysis on the assumption that [a removal order] does not exist,” but “[i]f that assumption is incorrect, a different analytical framework may apply” (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001 . FILEDDEPUTY CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BY: ________________________________April 09, 2026CSanchez The Court therefore ORDERS that ANY PARTY to an immigration habeas case SHALL inform the Court if: (1) (2) (3) (4) the Government transfers the petitioner to a new detention center; the Government grants the petitioner a custody redetermination hearing; the Government issues an order of removal against the petitioner; the petitioner’s order of removal becomes administratively final;3 (5) the Government removes the petitioner to another country; or (6) the Government otherwise releases the petitioner from custody. That party SHALL provide such notice AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. While the petitioner SHALL update the Court on any critical developments that occur after the petition is filed, each party SHALL share this responsibility if and when the Court orders the respondent(s) to show cause. If the opposing party disagrees with the filing party’s characterization of the facts, that party SHALL inform the Court within three days.4 3 See 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1 (explaining how “[a]n order of removal made by the immigration judge at the conclusion of proceedings under section 240 of the Act shall become final”). 4 See generally FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a)(1)(C) (“When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time . . . include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”). - 2 - Finally, the Clerk of Court SHALL DOCKET this Standing Order in all PENDING and FUTURE civil cases labeled with the “Nature of Suit” code “463 Habeas Corpus – Alien Detainee” and assigned to the undersigned Judge. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of April 2026. ____________________________________ DAVID C. GUADERRAMA SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE - 3 -

=== Standing-Order-Referring-Social-Security-Cases.pdf ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION 2I2HAY -3 AMIE GI HONORABLE DAVID C. GUADERRAMA § ALL SOCIAL SECURITY CASES STANDING ORDER REFERRING SOCIAL SECURITY CASES Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Appendix C to the Local Court Rules of the Western District of Texas, appeals of the final decisions of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration assigned to the undersigned judge shall be REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for the El Paso Division for disposition of all non-dispositive pretrial matters and for findings and recommendations on all case-dispositive motions. SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 3rd day of May, 2012. aa GUADERRAMA oat TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

=== Standing-Order-Regarding-Bill-of-Costs.pdf ===

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 138 205 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CLERK US DISTRICT cou EL PASO DIVISION weer aT BY RN BIeTRIET PF GrExAS § DEPUTY HONORABLE DAVID C. GUADERRAMA § ALL CIVIL CASES STANDING ORDER REGARDING BILL OF COSTS IT IS ORDERED that before any party files a Motion for Bill of Costs, they should first review the following applicable law. Second, they should submit their proposed bill of costs to opposing counsel for their review in light of the applicable law. Third, if there are any areas of disagreement, the parties shall meet, confer, and be prepared to compromise, making every effort to submit an “agreed” bill of costs to the Court. However, if the parties have a legitimate dispute on which they cannot agree, they shall file a motion—in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and Local Court Rule CV-54—indicating their areas of disagreement, and the Court will set a hearing at which time LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL will be ORDERED to appear and explain why they have not been able to resolve their differences. APPLICABLE LAW “Under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the party prevailing after judgment recovers costs unless the trial court otherwise directs.” Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346, 351 (1981) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d . “Under this rule, the decision to award costs tums on whether a party, as a practical matter, has prevailed.” Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 130 (Sth Cir. 1985). While the rule does not prevent a trial court from requiring a prevailing party to bear its own costs, ‘the language of the rule reasonably bears the intendment that the prevailing party is prima facie entitled to costs and it is incumbent on the losing party to overcome that presumption . . . [since] denial of costs . . . is in the nature of a penalty for some defection on his part in the course of the litigation.’ . .. Accordingly, when a trial court exacts such a penalty, it should state reasons for its decision. Id, at 131 (quoting Walters v. Roadway Express, Inc., 557 F.2d 521, 526 (Sth Cir. 1977 . “There is i strong presumption under Rule 54(d)(1) that the prevailing party will be awarded costs.” Cheatham v. Allstate Ins. Co., 465 F.3d 578, 586 (5th Cir. 2006). These costs | include: (1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title. 28 U.S.C. § 1920. There are restrictions, however, on the costs that a prevailing party may recover under Rule 54(d). The Fifth Circuit has determined that where there is no basis for an award of attorney’s fees: 1) absent explicit statutory or contractual authorization to the contrary, courts may not tax items other than those sisted in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 as costs against the losing party; 2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) allows trial courts to refuse to tax costs otherwise allowable, but it does not give them the power to tax items not elsewhere enumerated; and 3) insofar as there are statutory limits to the amounts that may be taxed as costs, Rule 54(d) does not empower courts to exceed those limits. West Wind Africa Line, Ltd. v. Corpus Christi Marine Servs. Co., 834 F.2d 1232, 1236 (Sth Cir. 1988) (citing Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-43 (1987). I A party seeking costs must affirm that “the amount claimed is correct, the costs were necessarily incurred during the case, and the services giving rise to the costs were actually and necessarily performed.” A & J Elec. Cable Corp. v. Emerson Network Power, Inc., No. H-10- -2- 2361, 2013 WL 1290938, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1924). “Without specific objections, [a party’s claimed] costs are presumed valid.” Jd. at *2 (citing Embotelladora Agral Regiomontana, S.A. de C.V. v. Sharp Capital, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 415, 417 (N.D. Tex. 1997 . “In the Fifth Circuit, the preferred exercise of a district court’s discretion in awarding costs is ‘to exclude from an award of costs those items not specifically mentioned in the statute.’” Roussel v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., Civ. No. H-05-3733, 2010 WL 1881898, at *13 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2010) (quoting Hodge v. Seiler, 558 F.2d 284, 287 (Sth Cir. 1977 ; accord Baisden v. I'm Ready Productions, Inc., 793 F. Supp. 2d 970, 973 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (citing | Crawford Fitting Co., 482 U.S. at 440). The party seeking recovery of costs bears the “burden of justifying the necessity of obtaining the depositions and copies at issue.” Fogleman v. ARAMCO, 920 F.2d 278, 286 (Sth Cir. 1991). (1) Feesof fe clerk and marshal “TA]bsent exceptional circumstances, the costs of a private process server are not recoverable under ection 1920.” Marmillion y. Am. Int'l Ins. Co., 381 F. App’x 421, 431 (Sth Cir. 2010) (citing Cypress—Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245, 257 (5th Cir. 1997). | (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case Under 28 US.C. § 1920(2), “[i]f, at the time it was taken, a deposition could reasonably be expected to be used for trial preparation, rather than merely for discovery, it may be included in the costs of the prevailing party.” Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 285. Relatedly, costs associated with depositions on written questions are recoverable. See, e.g., Casarez v. Val Verde Cnty., 27 F. Supp. 2d 749, I (W.D. Tex. 1998) (determining that depositions on written questions are | 3. recoverable costs); Hartnett v. Chase Bank of Tex. Nat. Ass’n, No. 3-98-CV-1061-L, 1999 WL 977757, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 1999) (holding that costs of depositions upon written questions to several medical providers to obtain medical records were recoverable court costs). “[I]t is not required that a deposition actually be introduced in evidence for it to be necessary for a case—as long as there is a reasonable expectation that the deposition may be used for trial preparation, it may be included in costs.” Stearns Airport Equipment Co., Inc. v. FMC Corp., 170 F.3d 518, 536 (Sth Cir. 1999). Whether a deposition or copy was necessarily obtained for use in the case is a factual determination made by the district court. See Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 285-86 (citations omitted). | The district court is accorded great latitude in this determination. See id, at 286. Charges for items that are for the convenience of counsel and not “necessarily obtained for use in the case” are disallowed. See Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 395 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1080 (D. Kan. 2005) (citing Hutchings v. Kuebler, No. 96-2487-JWL, 1999 WL 588214, at *3 (D. Kan. July 8, 1999) (costs of ASCII disks and minuscripts not be taxed); Albertson v. IBP, Inc., No. 96-2110- KHV, 1997 WL 613301, at *2 (D. Kan. Oct. 1, 1997) (delivery charges are not taxable as costs); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 883 F. Supp. 558, 562 (D. Kan. 1995) (postage associated with depositions not taxable ; Canion v. United States, No. EP-03-CA-0347-FM, 2005 WL 2216881 at *3 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2005). The Fifth Circuit has now implicitly recognized that costs may be allowed for videotapes of depositions. See S&D Trading Academy, LLC v. AAFIS, Inc., 336 F. App’x 443, 450-52 (Sth Cir. 2009). However, the prevailing party must make an independent showing that each version of the deposition was reasonably obtained for use in the case. See Baisden, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 976-77 (videotape deposition costs and deposition transcripts are both recoverable costs but the requesting party still bears the burden of showing that the different versions of the deposition were reasonably obtained for use in the case); see also Petri v. Kestrel Oil & Gas Properties, L.P., CIV.A. No. H-09-3994, 2013 WL 265973, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2013). (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses and Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case Costs of photocopies necessarily obtained for use in the litigation are recoverable upon proof of necessity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4); Holmes v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 11 F.3d 63, 64 (Sth Cir. 1994). The party seeking costs need not “identify every xerox copy made for use in the course of legal prdceedings.” Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 286. However, it must demonstrate some connection between the costs incurred and the litigation. Jd. The general rule is that duplicating expenses are properly taxable only to the extent that the copies were used in support of a successful motion for summary judgment, as exhibits at trial, or were furnished to and used by the Court or opposing counsel. See, e.g., Perez v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., 165 F.3d 368, 374 (5th Cir. 1999) (not an abuse of discretion for district court to allow prevailing party to recover costs of trial exhibits listed in pretrial order and provided to court in trial notebooks); Scroggins v. Air Cargo, Inc., i F.2d 1124, 1133 (Sth Cir. 1976). While the losing party “should be taxed for the cost of reproducing relevant documents and exhibits for use in the case, [it] should not be held responsible for multiple copies of documents, attorney correspondence, or any of the other multitude of papers that may pass through a law firm’s xerox machines.” Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 286; accord Oldham v. Thompson/Ctr. Arms Co., Inc., CIV. A. No. 4:12-CV-2432, 2014 WL 1794861, at *4 (SD. Tex. May 5, 2014). While taxable costs include charges for “copies made as part of discovery and the copies of documents filed with the court,” “[e]xtra copies for the convenience of counsel are not considered necessary for these purposes and therefore not taxed as costs.” Iniekpo v. Avstar Int’l Corp., CIV. A. No. SA-07—CA-879-XR, 2010 WL 3909321, at *2 n.21 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2010). (4) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title Section 1923 of Title 28 of the United States Code states that attorney’s “docket fees . . . may be taxed as costs [at] $20 on trial... in civil... cases... .” 28 U.S.C. § 1923(a). (5) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, Sees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services In Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., the Supreme Court held “that the category ‘compensation of species in § 1920(6) does not include costs for document translation.” Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997, 2007, 182 L. Ed. 2d 903 (2012). (6) Miscellaneous fees Miscellaneous expenses such as postage, facsimiles, electronic legal research, and travel expenses are not recoverable under § 1920. See Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 4:02-CV-95, 2003 WL 470545, at *1—2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2003); see also Compton v. Taylor, CIV A. No. 05-41 16, 2006 WL 1789045, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 27, 2006) (citations omitted). Likewise, reimbursement for attorney travel and meals is not allowed. See Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 5 dd 877, 892 (Sth Cir. 1993). In addition, the Fifth Circuit has expressly held that mediation fees are not recoverable. See Mota v. Univ. of Tex. Houston Health Science Ctr., 261 F.3d 512, 530 (Sth Cir. 2001). Unless the expert is court appointed, see 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6), the only fees that are recoverable as witness fees under § 1920(3) are those allowed by statute for a witness’ attendance at court ora deposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1821; Holmes, 11 F.3d at 64. Effective Date This Standing Order applies to all civil cases pending as of this date. -6- So ORDERED and SIGNED this i oA day of November, 2015. DC. GUAD. A UN|TED SFATES DISTRICT JUDGE

=== Standing-Order-Regarding-Motions-for-Summary-Judgment-1.pdf ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LED WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION HONORABLE DAVID C. GUADERRAMA § ALL CIVIL CASES STANDING ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This Standing Order vacates and supersedes the Court’s previous “Standing Order Regarding Motions for Summary Judgment,” entered on May 15, 2012. A. Motions for Summary Judgment (1) No party may file more than one motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, regardless of whether such motion is denominated as a partial motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, without leave from the Court. (2) Parties need not wait until the motion cutoff to bring motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment. Moreover, the Court expects that the party moving for summary judgment will strictly observe the timing requirements of the Local Rules and this Standing Order. Moyant’s Proposed Undisputed Facts (3) There shall be annexed to a motion for summary judgment a document entitled “Proposed Undisputed Facts,” which sets forth in separately numbered paragraphs a concise statement of each material fact as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried. All material facts set forth in said statement will be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement required to be filed and served by the opposing party in accordance with Section A(5) of this Standing Order. (4) The Proposed Undisputed Facts shall be prepared in a two-column format. The left column shall set forth the allegedly undisputed fact. The right column shall set forth the evidence that supports the factual statement. The factual statements should be set forth in sequentially numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph should contain a narrowly focused statement of fact. Each numbered paragraph should address a single subject as concisely as possible. Example for Movant: PROPOSED UNDISPUTED FACTS EVIDENCE 1. Moving party’s first proposed Citation to evidence in support of the undisputed fact. first proposed undisputed fact. 2. Moving party’s second proposed Citation to evidence in support of the undisputed fact. second proposed undisputed fact. Non-Movant’s Response to Proposed Undisputed Facts (5) There shall be annexed to a response to a motion for summary judgment a document ” entitled “Response to Proposed Undisputed Facts.” The opposing party’s Response to Proposed Undisputed Facts must be prepared in a three-column format, and track the movant’s Proposed Undisputed Facts exactly as prepared by that party. The first column must restate the allegedly undisputed fact verbatim. The second column must state whether each numbered fact in the first column is undisputed or disputed. If a proposed undisputed fact is disputed, the third column must cite evidence supporting the assertion that there is a genuine issue for trial regarding the proposed undisputed fact, or provide a specific evidentiary objection to the evidence on which the movant relies in support of -2- the proposed undisputed fact. The opposing party may dispute all or only a portion of each statement in the first column, but if disputing only a portion, the opposing party must clearly indicate in the second column what part is being disputed, followed by the opposing party’s evidence or objection in the third column controverting the proposed undisputed fact. The Court will not wade through a document to determine whether a fact really is in dispute. To demonstrate that a fact is disputed, the opposing party must (1) in the second column, briefly state why it disputes the moving party’s asserted fact, and (2) in the third column, cite to the relevant exhibit or other piece of evidence, and describe what it is in that exhibit or evidence that refutes the asserted fact, or provide an evidentiary objection to the movant’s evidence. No legal argument should be set forth in the Response to Proposed Undisputed Facts. Example for Non—Movant: PROPOSED UNDISPUTED | UNDISPUTED or | CONTROVERTING FACTS DISPUTED EVIDENCE (if disputed) 1. Identical to moving party’s first | Undisputed or Citation to evidence and proposed undisputed fact. Disputed (if brief statement explaining disputed, what how/why cited evidence exactly is disputed | refutes the asserted fact and why). and/or specific evidentiary objection to movant’s evidence cited in support of asserted fact. 2. Identical to moving party’s Undisputed or Citation to evidence and second proposed undisputed Disputed (if brief statement explaining fact. disputed, what how/why cited evidence exactly is disputed | refutes the asserted fact and why). and/or specific evidentiary objection to movant’s evidence cited in support of asserted fact. 3- (6) The opposing party may submit additional material facts that bear on or relate to the issues raised by the movant, which shall follow the format described above in Section A(4) for the moving party’s Proposed Undisputed Facts. These additional facts shall continue in sequentially numbered paragraphs and shall set forth in the second column the evidence that supports that statement. There is no third column in this section. Movant’s Reply to Response to Proposed Undisputed Facts (7) If the movant disputes any additional facts submitted by the opposing party in its Response to Proposed Undisputed Facts as described in Section A(6) above, the movant may dispute those additional facts in a document entitled “Reply to Response to Proposed Undisputed Facts.” If filed, that document shall be annexed to the movant’s Reply in support of the motion for summary judgment and it shall follow the same three-column format described in Section A(5) above, with the exception that the Reply to Response to Proposed Undisputed Facts shall be limited to the new additional facts submitted by the opposition party. This document shall not introduce additional material facts. (8) No party shall submit more evidence than necessary to support or controvert a proposed undisputed fact. For example, entire deposition transcripts, entire sets of interrogatory responses, and documents that do not specifically support or controvert material in the Proposed Undisputed Facts shall not be submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. The Court will not consider such material. (9) Evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion shall be submitted either by way of stipulation or as exhibits to declarations sufficient to authenticate it. (10) If a party disputes a fact based in whole or in part on an evidentiary objection, the ground for the objection should be specifically stated. Do not submit blanket or 4. boilerplate objections to the opponent’s proposed undisputed fact; the boilerplate objections will be overruled and disregarded. (11) Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c)(3) and 56(e), counsel and pro se parties are hereby notified that failure to provide specific citations to evidence in the record, as required by this Standing Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(1), may result in an order granting or denying the motion for summary judgment when the party fails to comply. (12) The Proposed Undisputed Facts and the Response to Proposed Undisputed Facts referred to above shall be filed and served along with the motion (and supporting papers) required by Local Court Rule CV-S and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. . Notice to Pro Se Litigants Regarding Summary Judgment Any represented party moving for summary judgment against a party proceeding pro se shall file and serve, as a separate document, in the form set forth below, a “Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment as Required by Standing Order Governing Motions for Summary Judgment.” If the pro se party is not a plaintiff, or if the case is to be tried to the Court rather than to a jury, the movant will modify the notice accordingly. The movant shall attach to the notice copies of the full text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and of this Standing Order. . Effective Date This Standing Order applies to all summary judgment motions filed after July 22, 2015. So ORDERED and SIGNED this ZZ wR oy off July, 2015. BAVID C. GUADERRAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motion For Summary Judgment As Required by Standing Order Governing Motions for Summary Judgment The purpose of this notice, which is required by the Court, is to notify you that the defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment asking the Court to dismiss all or some of your claims without a trial. The defendant argues that there is no nced for a trial with regard to these claims because no reasonable jury could return a verdict in your favor. THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION MAY BE GRANTED AND YOUR CLAIMS MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE IF YOU DO NOT FILE PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56 AND THIS COURT’S STANDING ORDER GOVERNING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. COPIES OF THESE RULES ARE ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE, AND YOU SHOULD REVIEW THEM VERY CAREFULLY. The papers you file must show that (1) you disagree with the defendant’s version of the facts; (2) you have evidence contradicting the defendant’s version; and (3) the evidence you rely on, if believed by a jury, would be sufficient to support a verdict in your favor. To make this showing, you must submit competent summary judgment evidence disputing the defendant's version of the facts. Such evidence may include affidavits or unswom declarations that comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1746. An affidavit is a sworn statement by an affiant that the facts contained in the affidavit are true to the best of the affiant’s knowledge and belief. To be considered by the Court, an affidavit must be signed and sworn to in the presence of a notary public or other person authorized to administer oaths. Alternatively, you may submit unsworn declarations. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, the unswor declaration must contain the following sentence at the end of the declaration: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, Executed on [date]. [Signature].” In addition to affidavits and declarations, you may also file deposition transcripts, responses to discovery requests, and other admissible evidence that support your claims. If you fail to submit evidence contradicting the defendant’s version of the facts, your claims may be dismissed without further notice. It is therefore very important that you read the defendant’s motion, memorandum of law, affidavits, and other evidentiary materials to see if you agree or disagree with the defendant’s version of the relevant facts. It is also very important that you review the enclosed copy of Standing Order Governing Motions for Summary Judgment carefully. This Standing Order provides detailed instructions concerning the papers you must file in opposition to the defendant’s motion, including how you must respond to specific facts the defendant claims are undisputed, see (a)(2), and how you must support your claims with specific references to evidence, see (a)(3). If you fail to follow these instructions, the defendant's motion may be granted. You must file your response papers with the Clerk of the Court and mail a copy to the defendant’s counsel within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the defendant’s motion with the Clerk of the Court.

=== Standing-Order-to-Replead-in-Removal-Cases-061621.pdf ===

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION HON. DAVID C. GUADERRAMA § § § § § ALL CIVIL CASES STANDING ORDER TO REFLEAD IN REMOVAL CASES IT IS ORDERED that in all removed cases, plaiiiti£f(s) SHALL replead by separately filing a complaint that conforms to the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 9. Plaintiff(s) SHALL replead vdthm fourteen (14) calendar days of the expiration of the thirty- day deadline to file a motion to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) or vvithin fourteen days of the Court's order denying a motion to remand. If defendant(s) filed an answer in state court, defendant(s) SHALL replead by separately filing an answer that conforms to the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8,9, and 12. Defendant(s) SHALL replead within twenty- one (21) days of the date plaintiff(s) file their complaint. So ORDERED and SIGNED this /i^'^day of June 2021. ID C. GUADERRAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FILEDDEPUTY CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BY: ________________________________June 16, 2021Reuben Amaro