Annemarie Carney Axon
How Judge Axon rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Axon
Annemarie Carney Axon is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Axon received a commission on June 12, 2018.
Judge Axon's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Axon, 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
Filing
Disclose any use of artificial intelligence to prepare a submission.
“must disclose the use of artificial intelligence”
Motions
Before filing a motion other than a motion to remand, contact opposing counsel to determine whether it is opposed.
“Before filing any motion (other than a motion to remand), moving counsel shall contact the opposing counsel”
Discovery
Seek leave before filing a motion about a discovery dispute.
“Parties must seek leave of the court before filing a motion about a discovery dispute.”
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 Axon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bolong v. Lassiter, Axon modified a recommendation because the Federal Tort Claims Act time limits were nonjurisdictional, then granted summary judgment for the United States.
“the time limits contained in the Federal Tort Claims Act are not jurisdictional. ... the court modifies the recommendation ... the court WILL GRANT summary judgment in favor of the United States”
Procedural preferences
In Bynum v. EBSCO Information Services, Axon denied a late motion to amend because the plaintiffs did not address Rule 16(b)’s good-cause standard after the scheduling deadline.
“Because Plaintiffs wholly fail to address Rule 16(b)'s good cause standard in their motion ... the court WILL DENY the motion for leave to amend.”
Holds pro se litigants to procedural rules: untimely objections to an R&R, filed without a motion for extension, are overruled (and were meritless anyway).
“Although the court construes filings by pro se litigants liberally, such litigants are still required to comply with procedural rules.”
Cautions
In Bynum v. EBSCO Information Services, Axon denied the plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) request because they had not pursued discovery already available to them, then granted summary judgment for the defendant.
“Parties that 'decline[] to . . . proactively participate in the discovery process' are not entitled to Rule 56(d) relief.”
In a challenge to service of process after default judgment, the court gave little weight to the defendant’s conflicting declarations and hearing testimony; the contemporaneous proof of service remained persuasive.
“Based on these inconsistencies, combined with the court’s observations of Mr. Shumate’s demeanor during the evidentiary hearing, the court does not find his testimony and affidavits credible.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court WILL GRANT IN PART and WILL DENY IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. ... WILL DISMISS all claims except the Eighth Amendment claim WITH PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court WILL DENY the motion to dismiss Mr. Bolong's Eighth Amendment claim against Mr. Ward but WILL GRANT the motion for summary judgment on that claim ... because Bivens does not provide a remedy”
“the court WILL GRANT EBSCO Information Services's motion for summary judgment and WILL ENTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT in its favor. (Doc. 66).”
“the court WILL DENY Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 56(d) relief. (Doc. 69).”
“the court WILL DENY the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 68).”
“The court WILL DENY the motion for summary judgment with respect to Mr. Brunson's excessive force claim against Officer Green in his individual capacity. The court WILL GRANT the motion for summary judgment and WILL ENTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT in favor of Officer Green and Lt. Howell on all other claims brought against them in their individual capacities.”
“The court WILL GRANT the Commission's motion to dismiss and WILL DISMISS Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six against it WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the court declines to exercise its discretion to award fees in this case and WILL DENY the Commission's request.”
Section 1915A screening dismissal (adopting recommendation over objections): the court WILL DISMISS this action, with prejudice as to Mr. Mays' Bivens claims, and without prejudice as to any potential FTCA claim.
“The court WILL GRANT Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.”
“the court GRANTS Plaintiff Helcim USA, Inc.'s motion for default judgment on its claims for fraud, breach of contract, and indemnification and WILL ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Defendants Jason Phillip Goins and MJ's Discount Warehouse, Inc., d/b/a MJ's Wholesale Division, on those claims. (Doc. 42). The court DENIES Helcim's motion on its claim for civil conspiracy.”
“The court WILL GRANT Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and WILL ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS in favor of Defendants and against the Wilsons' minor son with respect to Counts One through Three, Nine, and Ten. (Doc. 82). The court WILL DENY Defendants' motion as to Counts Four through Eight.”
“The court WILL DENY the motion to dismiss the claims against Mr. Burt for lack of standing and WILL GRANT the motion to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim. The court WILL DISMISS Counts One, Two, and Three against Mr. Burt WITH PREJUDICE.”
Rule 41(b) failure-to-prosecute dismissal adopting an unobjected recommendation after plaintiff failed to provide a current address: the court WILL DISMISS this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) screening dismissal for failure to state a claim, adopting an unobjected recommendation and sua sponte dismissing additional claims: the court WILL DISMISS this action WITH PREJUDICE.
“Accordingly, the court DENIES Mr. Hernandez’s petition.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 355 days (N = 8).
The reviewed cases illustrate a mix of employment, civil-rights, prisoner, insurance, defamation, capital-habeas, and consent Social Security matters. They do not represent the full docket, and broader case-ending data are unavailable for the later part of the period.
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 8 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 9 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Northern District of Alabama, not for Judge Axon: 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 | 1,513 | 8.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 113 | 2.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,380 | 9.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 6 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 32.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,513 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,290 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,387 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,507 | 11.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,803 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,507 | 10.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,732 | 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 Axon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Axon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Axon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace