Harold Dean Mooty III
How Judge Mooty rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mooty
Harold Dean Mooty, III is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Mooty received a commission on October 21, 2025.
Judge Mooty's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Mooty, 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
Motions
For motions other than summary judgment, mark both the title and caption as opposed or unopposed.
“an indication whether the motion is opposed or unopposed must appear in both the title and the caption of the motion”
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.”
Conferences
Conduct the Rule 26(f) conference within 21 days after the initial order.
“no later than twenty-one days from the date of this order”
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 Mooty decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He treated evidence touching each integrated-enterprise factor as enough to require a jury determination rather than summary judgment.
“there is some evidence of each of the four factors of the integrated enterprise or single employer test”
He allowed a credit-reporting claim to proceed where the pleaded facts supported a plausible inference that the report lacked a permissible purpose.
“Yarbrough has plausibly alleged a violation of § 1681b for failure to ensure a permissible purpose.”
Procedural preferences
Before imposing case-ending discovery sanctions, he required a concrete showing of prejudice rather than a generalized complaint about delay.
“no concrete examples of such prejudice”
He found dismissal with prejudice appropriate only after escalating measures—including extensions, a compel order, fees, and a warning—failed to secure compliance.
“Mr. Tolliver’s conduct is contumacious and that lesser sanctions would not suffice to ensure compliance.”
In one early-stage employment case, the court allowed the plaintiff to seek leave to amend factually deficient claims while treating a legally barred age-disparate-impact theory differently.
“the deficiencies identified above concern the absence of factual content rather than a legal bar.”
Cautions
A request to reopen did not cure earlier pleading defects where the movant failed to attach a proposed amended complaint.
“it does not attach a proposed amended complaint that might cure them.”
He treated a generic retaliation theory under the Equal Protection Clause as legally unavailable.
“A pure or generic retaliation claim, however, simply does not implicate the Equal Protection Clause.”
He denied an unspecified request for more time because it did not explain good cause, even while giving the self-represented litigant procedural latitude.
“this vague, barebones request for some ‘extension,’ (doc. 5 at 1), is insufficient to show good cause for extending the court’s deadline”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“to dismiss, (doc. 31), is DENIED.”
“Therefore, the court GRANTS Runergy’s motion to dismiss, (doc. 27), and”
“National’s motion for default judgment on its declaratory judgment claim is GRANTED.”
He dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute without reaching the pending summary-judgment motion. Quote: “this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Dotson’s failure to prosecute.”
“their request for reconsideration, (doc. 66), is DENIED.”
“summary judgment, (doc. 37), is DENIED.”
“summary judgment (Doc. 41) and DISMISSES the case.”
He adopted an unopposed recommendation and dismissed the habeas action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. Quote: “action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)”.
“Turner’s Motion to Reopen, (doc. 14), is DENIED.”
“Pleadings, (doc. 14), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Pete Hegseth’s Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 35), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Bridges’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 11 days (N = 17).
The 20 returned post-commission cases included prisoner, habeas, Social Security, civil-rights, insurance, criminal, and other statutory matters. The case-level snapshot labeled all 20 pending, although several entry timelines already contained dismissal orders, so the status count should not be treated as current.
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 | 2 |
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 Mooty: 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 Mooty with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mooty, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mooty's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace