Charles S. Coody
How Judge Coody rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Coody
Charles S. Coody began serving as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Alabama in May 1987. He earned a degree from Spring Hill College and a law degree from the University of Alabama. Before joining the bench, he served in the Army, clerked for an Alabama Supreme Court justice, and practiced civil law.
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Coody decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Fletcher v. Colvin, he reversed and remanded a disability benefits decision because the ALJ had not developed the record on the severity and work effects of the claimant’s cerebral atrophy.
“Without a more developed record and further inquiry, the court concludes that the ALJ erred as a matter of law when he failed to develop the record regarding the severity of Fletcher's cerebral atrophy and the effect of that impairment on Fletcher's ability to perform work.”
In United States v. Tellis, he recommended allowing the defendant to withdraw a guilty plea after concluding that incorrect advice about a mandatory sentencing enhancement made the plea involuntary.
“These ambivalent statements about the possibility of the ACCA applying to Tellis, coupled with his attorney's unequivocal advice that Tellis was not subject to the ACCA, lead the court to conclude that Tellis' plea was not knowing and voluntary.”
Procedural preferences
In Robinson v. Davenport, he found that the petitioner’s attempts to contact counsel did not show that he had checked with either court to learn the status of his direct appeal.
“Although Robinson alleges he made many attempts to contact Abbott about the status of his direct appeal, he makes no allegation that he attempted to contact the state trial court or the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to determine the status of his appeal.”
In Acre v. Chambers, he denied spoliation sanctions because the defendants’ handling of a taser was at most negligent and did not show the bad faith needed for an adverse inference.
“Although shortsighted, the defendants' decision to initially place the taser back into service in March 2013 and then to remove the battery in July 2014 for storage in the evidence room does not rise to the level of bad faith. At best, it constitutes negligence, and in this circuit, even gross negligence is insufficient to justify an adverse inference.”
Cautions
In Gardner v. Dunn, he recommended dismissal of a successive habeas petition because the petitioner had not obtained authorization from the Eleventh Circuit.
“This cause of action be DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(b)(3)(A) as Gardner has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to consider his successive habeas application.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants be granted and that this case be dismissed with prejudice.”
“Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1. The motion for summary judgment be GRANTED; 2. This case be DISMISSED with prejudice; and 3. The costs of this proceeding be taxed against the plaintiff.”
“1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 11) be GRANTED; 2. Judgment be ENTERED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff; 3. This case be DISMISSED with prejudice; and 4. Costs of the proceeding be TAXED against Plaintiff for which execution may issue.”
“(1) That the defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. # 38) the claims against defendants the City of Phenix City, Joe Edwards, Jessica Carter, S. Frederick and John Gwin be GRANTED and these defendants be DISMISSED as defendants in this action. (2) That the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against defendants Ray Smith and Michele Kilday in their official capacities be GRANTED. (3) That, with respect to the plaintiff's First Amendment claim against defendants Smith and Kilday in their individual capacities, the motion to dismiss be DENIED.”
“1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Gardner be DENIED. 2. This cause of action be DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(b)(3)(A) as Gardner has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing this court to consider his successive habeas application.”
“ORDERED that the defendant's motion to remand (doc. # 20) be and is hereby GRANTED. By separate final order the decision of the Commissioner will be reversed and this case remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for further proceedings.”
“Accordingly, in light of the inadequate development of the medical evidence and the ALJ's failure to fully and fairly develop the record in this case, the court concludes that this case should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Accordingly, it is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) be DENIED. (Doc. No. 7.)”
“ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss Count III of the complaint be and is hereby GRANTED and the plaintiff's claim for retaliation pursuant to Title VII be and is hereby DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss Count II of the complaint be and is hereby DENIED.”
“the petition for habeas corpus relief should be dismissed without prejudice so that Sims can pursue his available state court remedies.”
“the petition for writ of habeas corpus relief be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”
“it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the defendant's motion to withdraw guilty plea (doc. # 42) be GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Coody's sampled consent-jurisdiction caseload spans Social Security disability appeals, prisoner Section 1983 civil-rights and Section 2254 habeas matters, employment discrimination, personal-injury and insurance diversity cases, and general civil litigation: consistent with a full-career general-civil consent docket rather than a single specialty.
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 | 0 | 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 United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, not for Judge Coody: 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 | 581 | 7.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 45 | 3.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 525 | 7.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 25 months |
| Closed during trial | 1 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 581 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 485 | 9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 581 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 546 | 13 months |
| Sep 2021 | 502 | 12.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 527 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 508 | 10.8 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 Coody with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Coody, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Coody's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace