R. David Proctor
How Judge Proctor rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Proctor no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Proctor
R. David Proctor was a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Proctor received a commission on September 22, 2003. Judge Proctor assumed senior status on January 1, 2026 and retired on July 1, 2026.
How Judge Proctor decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Moeinpour v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, Proctor denied summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation count because that claim presented a question for the factfinder.
“UAB's Motion is due to be denied as to Count Two. Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim which must be resolved by a trier of fact.”
In Kohut v. Falk, Proctor denied reconsideration of a forum-non-conveniens dismissal after finding that the plaintiff could not seek to enforce the contracts while avoiding their forum-selection clauses.
“it was irreconcilable for Plaintiff to simultaneously attempt to enforce the contracts against Defendants but avoid the form-selection clauses those contracts impose.”
Procedural preferences
In Jennings v. Smith, Proctor certified a disputed interpretation of Alabama’s stop-and-identify statute to the state Supreme Court because its answer would determine whether the plaintiff’s claims could proceed.
“For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion (Doc. # 80) is GRANTED and this court respectfully asks the Supreme Court of Alabama to answer the question certified.”
Cautions
In Thedford v. Career Path Training Corp., Proctor dismissed the complaint with prejudice after the plaintiff failed to correct pleading defects despite prior opportunities and instructions to amend.
“Plaintiff has demonstrated either an unwillingness or an inability to remedy these pleading defects, and the interests of judicial economy and fairness to Defendant warrant no further leave to amend.”
Rule 59(e) reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly — not a second bite or a substitute for appeal.
“A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For these reasons, Defendant's Motion (Doc. # 80) is GRANTED and this court respectfully asks the Supreme Court of Alabama to answer the question certified.”
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend (Doc. # 44) is DENIED.”
“UAB's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 84) is due to be granted as to Counts One, Three, and Four, and on the issue of backpay. However, UAB's Motion is due to be denied as to Count Two. Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim which must be resolved by a trier of fact.”
“Mayer's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 86) is due to be granted as to Count Five. Mayer is due to be dismissed from this case.”
“Cagle's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 85) is due to be denied as to Count Six.”
“Defendants' Motion is due to be granted in part and denied in part.”
“ADOC's Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be granted.”
“Defendant Imerys Carbonates USA, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 31) is due to be granted.”
“Defendants' Motions (Defamation, Doc. # 1243; RICO, Docs. # 754, 755) are due to be denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 249 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 38.5 days (N = 4).
The reviewed cases illustrate Judge Proctor's case mix but do not represent his full docket. 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 25 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 24 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 21 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 21 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 19 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 19 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 18 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Proctor no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.