Corey L. Maze
How Judge Maze rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Maze
Corey Landon Maze is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Maze received a commission on June 18, 2019.
Judge Maze's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Maze, 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
Provide an exact courtesy copy within three business days for submissions exceeding 30 pages, including exhibits.
“For all submissions exceeding 30 pages (including exhibits), the filing party must submit, within three (3) business days of filing, an exact courtesy copy”
Motions
Contact opposing counsel before filing a motion other than remand or summary judgment to determine whether it is opposed.
“Before filing a motion (other than a motion to remand or motion for summary judgment), 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 Maze decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Nute, video showing an officer observing a prolonged jail assault supported a failure-to-intervene claim at summary judgment, even though other use-of-force claims against officers were resolved in their favor.
“But a reasonable juror who watches the video could find that White had time to intervene.”
In Hawkins, Maze denied summary judgment and qualified immunity for a deputy because the record left disputed whether the ATV was charging toward him when he fired.
“Grant’s framing assumes the very fact that remains disputed: that Hawkins was charging at Grant when he fired.”
Procedural preferences
In Aim 4 Pie, Maze dismissed thinly pleaded trademark claims without prejudice and allowed one more complaint after finding that specific additional facts might cure the defects.
“the court will allow Aim 4 Pie one chance to replead its complaint to address the pleading deficiencies highlighted above.”
Cautions
In Barnes, Maze found that a self-represented litigant had cited fabricated or misrepresented cases. He declined a show-cause order in that case but warned that using such authorities in a future case could lead to sanctions.
“the court warns Barnes that the use of misrepresented or fabricated legal authority in any future case is a sanctionable offense—lawyer or not.”
In Johnson, Maze granted summary judgment on a race-based pay claim because the employee offered no evidence of more favorable treatment of comparable white employees or pretext for the employer’s stated pay decision.
“Johnson offers no evidence that similarly situated, white employees were treated more favorably”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court GRANTS School Health's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 11). The court's dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE; meaning that the court will allow Aim 4 Pie one chance to replead its complaint to address the pleading deficiencies highlighted above.”
“the court will deny Wal Mart's motion for summary judgment as to Count 1 and dismiss as moot Wal Mart's motion as to Counts 2 and 3 (because the court grants Miles's motion to voluntarily dismiss those counts).”
“Norfolk Southern's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 41) is GRANTED and Counts II, III, and IV are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“the court will grant the respondent's motion for summary dismissal and deny Shirey's petition.”
“For these reasons, the court DENIES Finley's motion to remand. (Doc. 4).”
“the court GRANTS Russell's Motion to Remand, (doc. 9), and thus DENIES AS MOOT Landingham's Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 7).”
“King's motion to remand is due to be GRANTED.”
“Because Leonard failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted, the court will DISMISS this case with prejudice.”
“the court does not find that Leonard filed his claims against Wells Fargo in bad faith... So the court will deny Wells Fargo's motion for sanctions.”
“So the Court denies Vasser's motion for partial summary judgment.”
“the Court denies the motion without prejudice and invites Vasser to refile her motion at a later date, under the Court's forthcoming scheduling order.”
“The court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the claims raised in Adams' original § 2255 motion (doc. 1) and will enter a separate order directing the Clerk of Court to close this case.”
The court dismissed five ineffective-assistance theories with prejudice and set three remaining claims for an evidentiary hearing. Its September 24, 2026 opinion denied those claims and stated that a final order would deny the Section 2255 motion outright; that later opinion carries the motion’s final outcome.
“Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Accordingly, this action is due to be dismissed as duplicative.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 183 days (N = 15).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 120 days (N = 2).
Maze's reviewed docket includes employment and pay disputes, consumer-credit litigation, prisoner and habeas matters, insurance cases, civil-rights claims, sanctions questions, and contested dispositive motions in both counseled and self-represented cases.
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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Maze: 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 Maze with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Maze, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Maze's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace