R. Austin Huffaker, Jr.
How Judge Huffaker rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Huffaker
R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Huffaker received a commission on December 12, 2019.
Judge Huffaker's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Huffaker, 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.
- Civil and Criminal Practices and Procedures ↗
- Scheduling and Case Management Order ↗
- Rule 26 Planning Report Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Submit proposed orders to Judge Huffaker both as a PDF attachment to the motion and as a Word document emailed to chambers with all counsel copied.
“Any proposed order that a party desires the Court to enter should be submitted to the Court in both (i) an Adobe Acrobat PDF format attachment to the motion and (ii) by transmitting an electronic copy of the proposed order to the Court, with all counsel copied”
Motions
Before requesting an extension from Judge Huffaker, contact opposing counsel and say in the motion whether the request is opposed.
“the moving party shall contact opposing counsel in an effort to obtain their consent before filing such a motion and shall notify the Court in the motion of whether the extension request is opposed or unopposed.”
Motions
Absent advance permission, briefs on dispositive and substantive motions before Judge Huffaker are limited to 35 double-spaced pages, and replies to 15.
“For all dispositive and substantive motions, the brief accompanying the motion and the brief in opposition shall not exceed thirty-five (35) double-spaced pages unless the Court grants advance permission to exceed that limit. Reply briefs shall not exceed fifteen (15) double-spaced pages”
Motions
Confer in good faith before a non-dispositive motion to Judge Huffaker and identify in the caption whether it is opposed.
“For all non-dispositive motions (continuance, extension, compel, etc.), the parties shall confer in good faith to resolve disputes, stipulate to points of agreement, and narrow any remaining issues. All motions shall include in the caption an indication as to whether the motion is opposed or unopposed.”
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 Huffaker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a private company's motion to dismiss a constitutional claim, the judge focused on the single threshold element, whether the defendant is a state actor, rather than working through every argument the company raised, since a negative answer to that question resolves the claim regardless of the merits of the rest.
“Of these reasons, the Court will address the most straightforward -- the state actor requirement.”
Even where a Fourth Amendment claim against a law-enforcement officer was effectively unopposed in the briefing, the judge still independently confirmed it was legally viable (citing the Supreme Court's warrantless-cell-phone-search rule) before letting it proceed, rather than treating the defendant's silence as forfeiting the point.
“Talley does not move to dismiss or otherwise respond to this allegation. ... For this reason alone, the claim will proceed forward. But even if it Talley had challenged this claim in his motion to dismiss, the motion would be denied. The United States Supreme Court has conclusively determined that warrantless searches of cell phones are unconstitutional.”
In the McCrory habeas petition, the judge gave weight to the trial expert’s recantation and the lack of reliable evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged bitemark; he then considered how much other evidence supported the conviction before granting relief.
“The non-bitemark evidence from which the jury could convict McCrory was minimal, save for circumstantial evidence possibly placing him in the home before Bonds’ body was discovered.”
In a removal dispute, the court required the defendant to substantiate the amount in controversy before retaining diversity jurisdiction; the plaintiff’s refusal to cap damages did not carry that burden by itself.
“Because Mayfield has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000”
Procedural preferences
Facing a sprawling, twenty-five-count complaint against ten defendants, the judge worked through each defendant's motion separately and methodically rather than issuing a single blended ruling, keeping the disposition of each claim against each defendant distinct.
“After reviewing the Amended Complaint, the motions to dismiss, and the responses thereto, the Court concludes that the motions are due to be granted in part and denied in part as discussed below.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 95) filed by Defendants Randall Houston and Michael Dozier is GRANTED. The claims against these defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 92) is GRANTED. The claims against this defendant are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The Renewed Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 93, 94) filed by Defendants April Bruner Webster and P.B. are GRANTED. The claims against these defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant Ann Marie Bruner's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 97) is GRANTED. The claims against this defendant are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant James Talley's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 100) is GRANTED in part. To the extent Talley seeks to dismiss Chris McWaters's claim that the warrantless search of the cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights (Count 1), the motion to dismiss is DENIED. In all other respects, the motion is granted.”
“To the extent Defendants Bill Franklin and Investigators Eric Bruner and James Talley seek to dismiss the remaining federal and state law claims against them, their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 100) is GRANTED. The state-law defamation claim (Count 7) is DISMISSED without prejudice. ... The remaining state-law claims ... and federal claims ... against these Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“To the extent Defendant Adam Bruner seeks to dismiss the unrelated state law claims regarding allegedly defamatory statements made after the arrest in this case, his Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 98) is GRANTED. ... The state law claims against this Defendant ... are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), (Doc. 11), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows: 1. To the extent of Reeves’ Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim (Count 1), Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted because the Eighth Amendment claim is time-barred. 2. To the extent of Reeves’ ADA claim (Count 2), Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice because the issue of Reeves’ alleged intellectual disability has not been resolved.”
“the ADOC’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. 23) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. The Motion is DENIED as to Count One of the Amended Complaint; 2. The Motion is GRANTED as to Count Two of the Amended Complaint; and 3. Count Two of the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 27) is GRANTED; and 2. Defendants Jefferson Dunn and Terry Raybon are hereby ENJOINED from executing Matthew Reeves by any method other than nitrogen hypoxia until further order from this Court.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the ADOC’s Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal (Doc. 84) is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice (doc. 34) is GRANTED;”
“it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.”
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (doc. 11) is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff’s Motion (doc. 22) is DENIED.”
“Petitioner William Bush’s claims for habeas corpus relief, individually and cumulatively, are DENIED and his petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.”
“Plaintiff J.B.’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3) is GRANTED IN PART;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Huffaker's reviewed docket spans contract, insurance, product-liability, trade-secret, employment-discrimination, civil-rights, RICO, prisoner, and federal habeas matters, including capital litigation involving preliminary relief.
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 Huffaker: 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 Huffaker with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Huffaker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Huffaker's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace