Madeline Hughes Haikala
How Judge Haikala rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Haikala
Madeline Hughes Haikala is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Haikala received a commission on October 16, 2013.
Judge Haikala's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Haikala, 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
Review and verify any computer-generated content used in a court filing.
“must review and verify computer-generated content”
Motions
When challenging the factual sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 8, defense counsel must first confer with plaintiff’s counsel about curing it.
“must confer with counsel for the plaintiff before filing a motion to dismiss”
Motions
State on the first page of a motion whether it is opposed and whether oral argument is requested.
“shall indicate on the first page of the motion whether the motion is opposed or unopposed”
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 Haikala decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Barrieu’s Title VII case, Haikala denied the city’s motion to dismiss the retaliation claim after finding sufficient allegations about reassignment following a discrimination complaint and unequal treatment of trainees.
“Mr. Barrieu has alleged facts sufficient to support his retaliation claim at this stage of the proceedings.”
In Barnes v. RMS Protective Services, she rejected a waiver argument because the G4S/Mithras agreement contained a nonwaiver clause.
“the non-waiver clause in the G4S/Mithras agreement forecloses this argument; Allied's waiver argument is 'defeated as a matter of law by the [anti-waiver provision] itself.'”
In Glass, Haikala declined to dismiss the claim against the jail captain at the pleading stage after allegations that a treatment provider specifically warned him of serious harm from withholding methadone.
“In the face of this specific warning about an inevitable, immediate, severe consequence of the jail’s failure to provide a particular treatment, namely the methadone doses that Mr. Glass’s OUD treatment provider supplied to the jail at no cost, Captain McCool cannot feign ignorance.”
Procedural preferences
In J & M Tank Lines v. Endurance, she struck an amended answer filed without consent or leave after the Rule 15 amendment window.
“Because Endurance filed its amended answer on September 27, 2024 without consent or leave, the Court will strike Endurance's amended answer from the record.”
Treats a claim cited but not factually argued at summary judgment as ABANDONED — brief the law AND apply it to your facts.
“a legal claim or argument that has not been briefed before the court is deemed abandoned and its merits will not be addressed.”
In Chapel v. AmeriCredit, she found that the agreement’s incorporation of AAA rules delegated threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.
“Because the American Arbitration Association's rules provide that the arbitrator shall decide what is subject to arbitration, an agreement to arbitrate in accordance with AAA rules incorporates an agreement to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability.”
Cautions
In Musso v. City of Trussville, she dismissed a municipal-liability theory based on one prior, unproven complaint that did not establish a policy or custom.
“Mr. Musso cannot establish a policy or custom by pointing to one past, unproven complaint.”
Fabricated, AI-generated case quotations violate Rule 11: she checked the authorities a pro se litigant cited, found the quoted language nowhere in them, and warned that litigants must verify computer-generated content before filing it.
“Generative artificial intelligence likely produced these unreliable quotations. The Court does not prohibit the use of AI, but to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable legal and ethical standards, attorneys and pro se litigants must review and verify computer-generated content to ensure that the content is entirely accurate and complies with all governing standards.”
In a municipal property dispute, she gave claim-preclusive effect to an earlier Alabama default judgment where the parties or their privies and the operative facts substantially overlapped.
“More than 13 years later, following an acceleration letter from Smoot, Fairfield asks this Court for relief that would necessarily require the Court to contradict the judgment in the second state court case. The doctrine of res judicata bars such action.”
In a disability-benefits appeal, she remanded after finding that the administrative decision overlooked recent hand-impairment evidence when assessing whether the claimant could perform her prior work.
“Substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding that Ms. McConnon could perform her past work as a chicken deboner.”
In a loss-of-consortium case, she declined to limit post-separation damages on summary judgment while the cause of the spouses’ separation remained unresolved; the defendants could renew that narrower request after trial evidence. The ruling leaves the causal question for proof.
“If the trial evidence demonstrates that Mr. and Mrs. Johnson separated for reasons unrelated to Mr. Johnson’s accident and injuries, then the defendants may renew their request to limit Ms. Johnson’s damages at the close of the evidence.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because there is no dispute between the plaintiffs and Protective and because Protective is not a necessary party to this litigation, the Court grants Protective's motion to dismiss it from this action.”
“Accordingly, the Court grants the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings against Endurance on the plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment that Protective exhausted its payment obligations.”
“Accordingly, the Court denies the City's motion to dismiss.”
“Accordingly, the Court grants Mithras's motion to dismiss Allied's cross-claims, (Doc. 138; see Doc. 143).”
“For the reasons discussed, the Court grants the defendants' motion and dismisses Counts IV, V, VI, and VII of Mr. Musso's complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court grants the City of Madison Board of Education's motion for summary judgment.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court grants UPS's motion for summary judgment on Ms. Pride-Fort's Title VII discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims.”
“Accordingly, the Court grants GM Financial's motion to compel arbitration and Experian's motion to dismiss. The Court stays this matter pending arbitration.”
“Experian is correct that Mr. Chapel's claim against Experian rests on the validity of Mr. Chapel's debt to GM Financial. Losch thus bars Mr. Chapel's claim against Experian.”
“Accordingly, Nucor may assert its recoupment claims, regardless of whether those claims are contingent, unmature, or illiquid.”
“the Court will dismiss Ms. Brown's Sec. 2241 habeas petition because the petition is moot. Additionally, the Court will dismiss Ms. Brown's Sec. 2241 habeas petition without prejudice for Ms. Brown's failure to prosecute her claims.”
“Therefore, the Court grants Smoot’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 14).”
The court screened a pro se complaint, dismissed federal claims for failure to state a claim and follow court orders, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. It terminated numerous pending filings without individually adjudicating their merits.
“the Court grants the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to dismiss, (Doc. 61). The Court abstains from exercising jurisdiction over iWTNS’s and Mr. Lewis’s claims in this case in favor of the more advanced litigation between these parties in the first-filed case pending in the Jefferson County, Alabama Circuit Court. (Doc. 61-2). The Court dismisses the plaintiffs’ claims against MotionMobs LLC, Ms. Peake, Ms. Fisher, and Ms. White without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 127 days (N = 12).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 264 days (N = 3).
Haikala's reviewed docket includes insurance, employment, civil-rights, consumer-finance, Social Security, habeas, arbitration, transfer, default-judgment, and sanctions matters.
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 | 39 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 2 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 41 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 39 | 41 |
| Sep 2025 | 43 | 38 |
| Mar 2025 | 62 | 36 |
| Sep 2024 | 56 | 37 |
| Mar 2024 | 26 | 43 |
| Sep 2023 | 25 | 40 |
| Mar 2023 | 27 | 32 |
| Sep 2022 | 18 | 29 |
| Mar 2022 | 22 | 34 |
| Sep 2021 | 20 | 34 |
| Mar 2021 | 28 | 39 |
| Sep 2020 | 28 | 39 |
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 Haikala: 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 Haikala with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Haikala, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Haikala's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace