Kelly Fitzgerald Pate
How Judge Pate rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pate
Kelly Fitzgerald Pate became a United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Alabama in September 2020. She previously clerked for a federal appellate judge and practiced civil litigation for more than 15 years. She studied at the University of Alabama and Cumberland School of Law.
Judge Pate's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pate, 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 Dates - Eastern 2025-2026 ↗
- Uniform Scheduling Dates - Northern 2025-2026 ↗
- Uniform Scheduling Dates - Southern 2025-2026 ↗
Key rules
Trial
Judge Pate’s published Eastern Division 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 Pate decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Edgar v. Brunson, Pate considered body-camera videos and a police report on a dismissal motion because the amended complaint incorporated or relied on them and their authenticity was not disputed.
“Edgar concedes that the two body-camera videos from June 22, 2021, are properly considered by the Court, as they are incorporated in the Amended Complaint... Here, the Court finds that all three of these elements are met with respect to the police report. First, it is central to Edgar's claims.”
In the reviewed wage case, summary judgment on a good-faith defense to liquidated damages failed because the employer had not yet supplied evidence supporting that defense.
“Tuskegee has not yet established it acted in good faith. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude at this stage whether Tuskegee would be entitled to the good faith safe harbor from liquidated damages, in the event a jury finds it liable for overtime.”
Procedural preferences
In Cooper v. Kijakazi, Pate construed the claimant’s supporting brief and the Commissioner’s opposition brief as opposing summary judgment motions, denied the claimant’s motion, and affirmed the benefits decision.
“The Court construes Plaintiff's supporting brief (Doc. 15) as a motion for summary judgment and the Commissioner's opposition brief (Doc. 16) as a motion for summary judgment; it is ORDERED as follows: 1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) is DENIED; 2) The Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16) is GRANTED; and 3) The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.”
In Lisenby v. Crenshaw County, Pate denied the pending dismissal motion as moot after an amended complaint was filed and directed the defendants to respond to that pleading.
“ORDER DENYING as moot 14 MOTION to Dismiss; further ORDERED that all Defendants must respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by 9/22/2021.”
In Barnes v. Calloway, Pate recommended transferring the habeas petition to the Northern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), where the challenged state conviction had been entered.
“Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).”
In the reviewed removal dispute, the court counted compensatory, mental-anguish, and punitive damages in assessing whether the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold.
“the Court finds that Defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; thus, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.”
Cautions
At summary judgment, subjective interpretations of neutral workplace events do not establish constructive discharge without objective evidence that conditions were intolerable.
“Jones presents only subjective interpretations of neutral events that occurred in the workplace.”
In Crandle v. Calloway, Pate concluded that the pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order after warning warranted dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
“Because of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the order of the Court, the undersigned concludes this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice... The authority of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is longstanding and acknowledged by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
In Edgar v. Brunson, Pate granted a renewed dismissal motion, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the state-law claims without prejudice.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) is GRANTED. All of Edgar's federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. All claims asserted against fictitious parties are DISMISSED. Edgar's state-law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
In the reviewed employment case, unpleasant working conditions did not establish constructive discharge without evidence that a reasonable worker would have felt compelled to resign.
“Even when viewed cumulatively, Dr. Sharkins has not produced substantial evidence that conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person in her position would have felt compelled to resign. Thus, her constructive discharge claim cannot survive summary judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).”
“Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).”
A sua sponte recommendation transferring a pro se prisoner's Section 1983 food-and-sanitation claim to the Northern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) and Section 1406(a), the district where the correctional facility was located; this venue determination did not rule on a party motion.
“it is ORDERED that the Commissioner's 21 motion is GRANTED and that the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) consistent with the Commissioner's motion”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 6 ) is DENIED; The Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 7 ) is GRANTED; and The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.”
“Plaintiff 9;s 12 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; 2. The Commissioner's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and 3. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED;”
“Trustmark's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) is GRANTED as to Count I failure to promote regarding the permanent Chief position in March 2024 and DENIED as to failure to promote to the interim position in November/December 2024, DENIED as to Count II, and GRANTED as to Count III.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 28) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) is DENIED;”
“The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) is GRANTED;”
“Claimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) is DENIED;”
“The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 13) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Pate's consent docket is led by Social Security disability appeals and also includes employment discrimination, prisoner medical-care and excessive-force claims, commercial contract and insurance disputes, and consumer-credit matters.
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 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Pate: 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 Pate with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pate, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pate's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace