Charles Lynwood Smith Jr.
How Judge Smith rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Smith
Charles Lynwood Smith, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Smith received a commission on December 26, 1995. Judge Smith assumed senior status on August 31, 2013.
Judge Smith's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Smith, 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
Use 14-point type for documents counsel creates for the court, with 12-point footnotes permitted.
“requires all documents created by counsel for submission to the court to be in 14 point type”
Motions
Before filing a motion other than a dispositive motion or remand, contact opposing counsel to determine whether it will be opposed.
“Prior to filing any motion (other than a dispositive motion or a motion to remand) in this case, moving counsel shall contact the opposing counsel”
Motions
Summary-judgment motions must meet the order’s Appendix II requirements.
“Any motion(s) for summary judgment filed in this action must comply with all requirements of Appendix II”
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 Smith decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Detailed treating-source summaries could outweigh sparse contrary observations when they explained the claimant’s functional limits.
“Claimant should not be penalized for his psychiatrist's attempts to comply with HIPAA privacy laws.”
He distinguished claims arising from an independent representation from claims seeking benefits under an employee plan.
“Because plaintiffs state-law claims are not pre-empted by ERISA, and no other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction has been asserted, plaintiffs motion to remand is due to be granted.”
Specific rebuttal evidence, rather than general allegations, was necessary to survive summary judgment.
“Plaintiff, on the other hand, has failed to present any substantive rebuttal evidence designating specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.”
Procedural preferences
He treated a duty-to-defend dispute as ripe while postponing an indemnity issue that depended on unresolved liability.
“the issue of whether Penn National has a duty to defend Hethcoat & Davis is ripe for adjudication, the issue of whether Penn Nation has a duty to indemnify Hethcoat is not ripe”
He required jurisdiction to be established before reaching a pending merits motion.
“Accordingly, defendant is ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction”
Cautions
Temporal proximity did not establish retaliation without evidence that the decisionmaker knew about the protected activity.
“Without evidence of that linkage, plaintiff cannot show that her termination was causally related to her protected activity.”
Inconsistent litigation positions exposed counsel to a substantial reduction in the requested fee award.
“Such conduct should not, and will not, be tolerated by this court.”
In an age-retaliation case, Smith granted summary judgment because the record did not show that the termination decisionmaker knew of the plaintiff’s earlier age-related complaint.
“There is no evidence, however, that Colson was aware of plaintiff’s early August complaints of age discrimination.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the holding of the bankruptcy court is due to be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED. Costs are taxed to appellant.”
“Because the ALJ's reasons for not providing full weight to Dr. Lachman's assessment were not supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner's decision to deny claimant's supplemental security income benefits was in error and should be reversed.”
The court ordered jurisdictional briefing before deciding the pending dismissal motion: “Accordingly, defendant is ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, Harvard’s motion for partial dismissal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Count Five of plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
“For the reasons explained above, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED”
“the cross-motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendants Quality Coatings & Drywall, Inc., The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., is DENIED”
“the state plaintiffs' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to the issue of Penn National's duty to indemnify, but DENIED as to the issue of Penn National's duty to defend.”
“Additionally, it is ORDERED that Hethcoat's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay, is DENIED.”
“Because plaintiffs state-law claims are not pre-empted by ERISA, and no other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction has been asserted, plaintiffs motion to remand is due to be granted.”
“The motions to dismiss will be denied.”
“Accordingly, the motions to suppress (docs. 28, 30, and 37) filed by defendant Donaldo Figueroa-Cruz are DENIED.”
“In accordance of all of the foregoing, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend his complaint is DENIED, as any amendment would be futile.”
“Aerotek’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Quest’s motion for judgment on the pleadings also is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Quest’s alternative motion to strike is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DENIED as moot.”
“Based on the foregoing, Epocal’s motion for a finding that this case is exceptional and for an award of attorney’s fees is DENIED.”
“For all of the foregoing reasons, summary judgment is due to be granted on plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 288.5 days (N = 20).
The 20 located assigned cases were all later terminated and included prisoner, employment, benefits, civil-rights, insurance, copyright, and other federal matters. This narrow archival slice does not establish the distribution of Smith’s full caseload.
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 | 6 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 6 | 3 |
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 Northern District of Alabama, not for Judge Smith: 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 Smith with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Smith, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Smith's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace