Emily C. Marks
How Judge Marks rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Marks
Emily Coody Marks is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Marks received a commission on August 3, 2018.
Judge Marks's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Marks, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Uniform Scheduling Order Dates - All Civil Trial Terms 2027-2028 ↗
- Uniform Scheduling Order Eastern Division 2027-2028 ↗
- Uniform Scheduling Order Dates - Eastern 2025-2026 ↗
- Uniform Scheduling Order Dates - Northern 2025-2026 ↗
- Uniform Scheduling Order Dates - Southern 2025-2026 ↗
- Uniform Scheduling Order Northern Division 2027-2028 ↗
- Uniform Scheduling Order Southern Division 2027-2028 ↗
- Chief Judge Marks' Pretrial Order sample ↗
Key rules
Trial
Judge Marks’s published uniform schedule places the proposed pretrial order one week before the pretrial conference.
“Proposed Pretrial Order 1 week before Pretrial Conference”
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 Marks decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In assessing whether a plaintiff's pre-suit settlement demand was a genuine valuation of the case or mere negotiating posture, the judge treated a detailed, specific demand letter, one that itemized medical treatment, expenses, and prognosis, as credible evidence of the claim's value, rather than discounting it as puffery.
“The comprehensive description of injuries, medical treatment and damages moves this case from the realm of puffery and posturing into a concrete assessment of damages.”
In Posey v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Marks adopted an unopposed magistrate judge recommendation after independently reviewing the file, granted the employer summary judgment, and dismissed the disability-discrimination case with prejudice.
“Upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: ... the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED.”
After de novo review of a suppression recommendation, she denied the motion where the stop had reasonable suspicion and the defendant conceded that inevitable discovery permitted the challenged statements despite the absence of Miranda warnings.
“Because law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to detain Townsend, and because the inevitable discovery rule permits the admission of Townsend’s incriminating, un-Mirandized statements, Townsend’s motion to suppress is due to be denied.”
Procedural preferences
In an IDEA administrative-record dispute, the court required a request for supplementation to address the governing standard and give a concrete reason for adding evidence; it left open a later supported request.
“The Plaintiff’s motion does not adequately grapple with this standard, nor does it articulate a compelling reason for the Court to provide relief at this juncture.”
In Gray, Marks struck a second amended complaint as a shotgun pleading while allowing a third amended complaint with clearer claims and allegations.
“Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (doc. 60) is STRICKEN as an impermissible shotgun pleading.”
Cautions
After a bench trial on Alabama’s nitrogen-hypoxia execution protocol, she entered judgment for the State because the plaintiff did not prove that the protocol violated the Eighth Amendment; this describes that trial record rather than other execution methods.
“Lee has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ADOC’s nitrogen hypoxia execution protocol violates the Eighth Amendment;”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, for the reasons as stated, and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion to remand (doc. 5) is DENIED.”
“That the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED; That the defendant's motion for summary judgment be and is hereby GRANTED; That this case be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (docs. # 9 and 12) be and are hereby GRANTED.”
“Defendant Christopher West's partial motion to dismiss (doc. # 14) be and is hereby GRANTED and all claims against this defendant in his official capacity be and are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“the court construes the stipulation as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). For good cause, it is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (doc. # 24) is GRANTED, and this case be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.”
“The motions to dismiss filed by defendants Cox, Currey, Kerensky, The Incorporated City of Vero Beach, Florida, Hicks, and Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc., (docs. # 54 & 63) are GRANTED in part due to improper venue... This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“motion to remand (doc. 23) is hereby DENIED, and no costs or fees are awarded”
“motion to transfer venue (doc. 3) is hereby GRANTED, and the case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division”
“motion to remand (doc. 11) is GRANTED and this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 68) is GRANTED;”
After a three-day bench trial on an Eighth Amendment challenge to Alabama's nitrogen-hypoxia execution protocol, the court entered judgment for the State. This trial judgment is recorded for reasoning context and has no separately classified party motion.
“Townsend’s motion to suppress (doc. 14) is DENIED.”
“The Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (doc. 39), is GRANTED as to Counts I and II, and these Counts are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled caseload spans contract, insurance, consumer-credit, product-liability, personal-injury, employment-discrimination, and prisoner civil-rights matters. Several cases ended by settlement or voluntary dismissal, while others remained in briefing without a retained ruling.
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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 16 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 16 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 18 | 13 |
| Sep 2020 | 14 | 12 |
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 Middle District of Alabama, not for Judge Marks: 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 Marks with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Marks, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Marks's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace