Myron H. Thompson
How Judge Thompson rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Thompson
Myron Herbert Thompson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Appointed by President Jimmy Carter, Judge Thompson received a commission on September 29, 1980. Judge Thompson assumed senior status on August 22, 2013.
Judge Thompson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Thompson, 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.
Key rules
Trial
Judge Thompson’s proposed pretrial order must be joint, reviewed, and approved by all parties before the pretrial hearing.
“The proposed pretrial order must be joint, and not piecemeal; and it should be reviewed and approved by all parties BEFORE the pretrial hearing.”
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 Thompson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In enjoining Alabama's near-total abortion ban, the judge treated the state's own concession as decisive, noting that the defendant's brief had already agreed the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their pre-viability challenge: he did not need to break new constitutional ground to grant relief, only apply settled Supreme Court precedent.
“And the defendant agrees. See Def.'s Opp'n (doc. no. 64) at 3 (conceding that, as to pre-viability abortion, the '[p]laintiffs are likely to prevail before this Court and should be granted a preliminary injunction')”
In a Section 1983 police-conduct suit, the judge found that a single officer's shifting, inconsistent accounts of how a plaintiff was injured, combined with circumstantial testimony that the officer and a colleague were seen brushing debris off their clothes shortly afterward, was enough for a jury to infer the officer's involvement in the alleged beating, even without an eyewitness to the blow itself.
“A jury could conclude based on the evidence of Smith's shifting stories about how Todd was injured, and the other circumstantial evidence discussed above (including evidence that Smith hit Todd intentionally with his truck), that he was involved in beating Todd or at least assisted those who did.”
In the reviewed wage-and-hour settlement, the joint request succeeded after the court found that the agreement was fair, reasonable, and free of collusion.
“the settlement agreement is not a product of collusion, and is a fair and reasonable resolution of the parties’ bona fide dispute over potential liability and damages in this case.”
Procedural preferences
In Stallworth v. Barton, he declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after entering summary judgment on the federal claims and dismissed the state claims without prejudice.
“Plaintiffs Stallworth and Marshall’s state claims are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to be refile in state court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state claims.”
In Browder v. Potter, he conducted an independent de novo review, overruled the plaintiff’s objection, and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
“After an independent and de novo review of the record, the court concludes that the plaintiff's objection should be overruled and the magistrate judge's recommendation adopted.”
In Horace v. LaSalle Bank, he remanded the case because the notice of removal did not establish the amount in controversy without speculation.
“Any attempt to determine the amount in controversy based on the notice of removal would thus require the court to engage the kind of unguided speculation explicitly prohibited by Lowery. Therefore, this case will be remanded to state court”
In Dunn v. Dunn, he resolved the defendants’ summary judgment motion differently for individual prisoners, dismissing some claims and sending others to trial.
“defendants' motion for summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs' claims will be granted in part and denied in part. Businelle, Carter, Dillard, Dunn, Moncrief, and Terrell, along with their claims, will be dismissed without prejudice; and summary judgment will be entered on the merits against Hardy. The mental-health Eighth Amendment claims of Hartley, Braggs, Jackson, Johnson, McCoy, Pruitt, Wallace, and Williams will go to trial.”
In Brock v. Cross Country Mortgage, he allowed the plaintiff to file a reply and additional evidence after the defendants responded to her objections without leave.
“Because defendants filed responses to Brock’s objections (Doc. 55 and Doc. 56), without seeking leave of court or being ordered to do so, in the interest of fairness the court will grant plaintiff’s motion to submit a reply and additional documentary evidence, which addresses the same issue as her reply.”
Cautions
In the Luster search case, the court held that the officers were immune from Mrs. Luster’s nude-exposure claim because the specific right was not clearly established at the time. It allowed Mr. Luster’s excessive-force claim against Officer Renfroe to proceed.
“At the time of the violation, there was no binding Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit law establishing with specificity that the Eclectic officers' treatment of Mrs. Luster violated the Fourth Amendment... Accordingly, the court concludes that the three Eclectic officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Mrs. Luster's claim.”
In Bullock v. Strickland, he denied a pro se prisoner’s class certification motion because the plaintiff could not adequately represent absent class members.
“It is well established, however, that a pro se plaintiff 'cannot be an adequate class representative.'”
In the reviewed postjudgment motion, a change in appellate law did not justify reopening where the plaintiff waited years after judgment and months after the new decision to act.
“Because Kister was not diligent in challenging the entry of judgment against him, the court finds that the extraordinary circumstances necessary for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) do not exist.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. no. 13) is granted.”
“The defendant's alternative motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 13) is denied as moot.”
“The 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied.”
“This lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that the habeas-corpus request be denied as time-barred... the court concludes that the objections should be overruled and the magistrate judge's recommendation adopted.”
“Defendant Steven Marshall, in his official capacity as Alabama Attorney General, and all those acting in concert with him are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from: (a) enforcing Alabama Act No. 2019-189 as applied to pre-viability abortion...”
“The motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 15) filed by plaintiffs Joelsongs; Experience Hendrix, LLC... is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant WestPoint Home, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment will be granted in all respects.”
“In conclusion, defendants' motion for summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs' claims will be granted in part and denied in part. Businelle, Carter, Dillard, Dunn, Moncrief, and Terrell, along with their claims, will be dismissed without prejudice; and summary judgment will be entered on the merits against Hardy. The mental-health Eighth Amendment claims of Hartley, Braggs, Jackson, Johnson, McCoy, Pruitt, Wallace, and Williams will go to trial.”
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for class certification (doc. no. 222) is denied.”
“Petitioner Williams's motion for reconsideration (doc. no. 26) is denied on the merits.”
“Defendants Gordon Ledbetter, Chris Miles, and A.J. Renfroe's motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 22) is denied as to plaintiff Adam Luster's claim for excessive force against defendant Renfroe. Only this claim will go to trial... Said motion is granted in all other respects, with judgment entered in favor of defendants Ledbetter, Miles, and Renfroe.”
“That defendant Andreas Jejuan Smith's motion to sever counts (Doc. no. 16) is denied.”
“Defendant Joseph Sanders's motions to sever defendant (doc. nos. 86, 115, and 116) and defendant Michael Smith's motion to sever defendant (doc. no. 97) are granted.”
“The government's motion to empanel two juries in a single trial (doc. no. 99) is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
His general docket (drawn from the sampled filing-year cohorts) includes a large volume of pro se state and federal prisoner civil-rights and habeas cases, Social Security and other federal-agency matters, insurance-coverage and contract disputes, personal-injury removals, and a smaller but recurring stream of high-profile constitutional and civil-rights class actions.
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 | 15 |
| 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 | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 15 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 16 | 11 |
| Mar 2025 | 21 | 12 |
| Sep 2024 | 20 | 13 |
| Mar 2024 | 23 | 12 |
| Sep 2023 | 17 | 11 |
| Mar 2023 | 17 | 12 |
| Sep 2022 | 12 | 9 |
| Mar 2022 | 12 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 15 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 23 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 21 | 9 |
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 Thompson: 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 Thompson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Thompson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Thompson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace