William Harold Albritton III
How Judge Albritton rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Albritton
William Harold Albritton, III is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Albritton received a commission on May 14, 1991. Judge Albritton assumed senior status on May 17, 2004.
Judge Albritton's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Albritton's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Albritton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Jackson v. Tuskegee University, he dismissed a count with prejudice after the plaintiff’s counsel conceded the defendant’s dismissal argument and did not oppose dismissal.
“Counsel for Plaintiff Cynthia A. Jackson has filed a Response (Doc. # 15) conceding that Tuskegee's arguments are persuasive and stating that Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal of Count One of the Complaint.”
In Wells, Albritton granted remand because the removing defendant cited medical bills and policy limits without pleading or evidentiary support and did not establish the amount in controversy.
“the removing party has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the requisite amount was in controversy at the time of removal.”
In Davis v. Phenix City, he denied dismissal of a First Amendment claim while leaving defendants free to renew their arguments after the facts were developed.
“the court cannot conclude that it is beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims in the Complaint that would entitle him to relief. ... This denial, however, is without prejudice to the Defendants again raising, in a motion for summary judgment or at trial, any arguments which may be appropriately raised in the context of facts as developed by the parties.”
Procedural preferences
In Parker v. Givens, he adopted an unopposed magistrate judge recommendation after an independent review of the record.
“After a review of the Recommendation, and after an independent review of the entire record, the Court finds that the Recommendation should be adopted.”
Treats a party's failure to comply with a limited-scope amendment order, after multiple extensions, as grounds to deny reconsideration rather than excuse the lapse.
“It would be difficult, indeed, for the court to expect attorneys to follow its orders if all it took to justify ignoring them was to say that it 'was due to inadvertence and mistake.'”
On a Daubert challenge, permits an industry expert to testify about the standard of care under hypothetical fact patterns, but excludes any opinion that resolves disputed facts or reaches the ultimate cause of an accident.
“He may not accept as true any one of those versions, as he is not an accident reconstructionist. Also, he may refer to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and the role they play in developing safety standards ... but he may not testify that rules and regulations were violated.”
Cautions
In a multi-defendant case with overlapping motions, splits outcomes precisely by defendant and by legal theory rather than resolving the case as a whole, dismissing some claims outright while giving a plaintiff one more chance to plead a single claim against a single defendant more specifically.
“The Plaintiffs are given until June 17, 2010 to file a new Amended Complaint, complete unto itself, which more specifically pleads the alleged violations of the EFAA against Regions Bank ONLY.”
In Nettles v. Warren, he dismissed the prisoner’s case without prejudice for failure to exhaust an available administrative remedy.
“This case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for the Plaintiff's failure to exhaust an administrative remedy presently available to him at the Macon County Jail.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #12) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“the Motion to Dismiss Count One of the Complaint (Doc. # 9) is GRANTED and Count One of the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“This case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for the Plaintiff's failure to exhaust an administrative remedy presently available to him at the Macon County Jail.”
“The Relators' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #28) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“The Motion to Seal Relators' Identities (Doc. #28) is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to unseal the Complaint in this case.”
“The Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED (Doc. #11) and the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED (Doc. #11)... this case is STAYED until arbitration has been completed.”
“the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #7) is due to be and is hereby ORDERED DENIED. This denial, however, is without prejudice to the Defendants again raising, in a motion for summary judgment or at trial, any arguments which may be appropriately raised in the context of facts as developed by the parties.”
“The defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. ... The plaintiff's claims against Lisa Bonner are DISMISSED with prejudice. ... The plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice as these claims are barred from review by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and its progeny.”
“the defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“the defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 2. Judgment is GRANTED in favor of the defendant. 3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement, and Motion to Strike (Doc. #45) filed by Wachovia Bank is DENIED as moot.”
“The Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss, and for Sanctions (Doc. #73) filed by Wachovia Bank is GRANTED as to the constitutional claims asserted in Count II and the 15 U.S.C. § 1693h claim in Count XI ... and those claims are DISMISSED. The Motion is held in abeyance as to the state law claims.”
“The Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. #69) filed by Regions Bank is GRANTED as to the constitutional claims ... The Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. #69) by Regions is GRANTED as to EFAA claims in IX and X ... and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Plaintiffs are given until June 17, 2010 to file a new Amended Complaint, complete unto itself, which more specifically pleads the alleged violations of the EFAA against Regions Bank ONLY.”
“The Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (Doc. #94) filed by Bivens Defendants is GRANTED and judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Leighton Greenlee and Clayton Slay on all claims against them”
“The Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Leighton Greenlee (Doc. #116) filed by the Plaintiffs is DENIED in part and DENIED in part as moot, as discussed.”
“The Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. # 11) is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 67 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 28 days (N = 11).
- Sampled dockets span federal-question and diversity civil suits (a consumer credit-reporting suit, a labor-relations suit against an employer and union, and a debt-collection declaratory-judgment action) from 2013, and prisoner habeas corpus and mandamus petitions from 2022, the most recent filing year in which a case has been located as assigned to this judge.
- All five sampled cases have concluded; the 2022 habeas and mandamus cases closed in about one to two months, while the multi-defendant 2013 civil suits, which went through several rounds of dispositive motions, took roughly four to fourteen months to resolve.
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 | 6 | 3 |
| 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 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, not for Judge Albritton: 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 Albritton with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Albritton, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Albritton's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace