Bert W. Milling Jr.
How Judge Milling rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Milling
Bert W. Milling Jr. has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Alabama and now serves in recalled status. A Mobile native, he earned his law degree from the University of Alabama and served as an Army legal officer before joining the bench.
Judge Milling's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Milling, 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
Conferences
Confer and engage in meaningful settlement discussions within 30 days before the final pretrial conference.
“Counsel shall confer and engage in meaningful settlement discussions within 30 days prior to the Final Pretrial Conference.”
Trial
Confer with opposing counsel and file one joint pretrial document at least 7 days before the final pretrial conference.
“Counsel shall confer and shall jointly prepare a single Joint Pretrial Document in the form attached, which must be filed with the Clerk of Court at least seven (7) calendar days before the Final Pretrial Conference.”
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 Milling decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Loop v. Allianz Life Insurance, he applied the common defense rule and remanded after finding that the asserted defense would defeat the claims against both the resident agent and the diverse insurer.
“If the claims for fraud and suppression are barred because of the statute of limitations, the only claim left is the negligence/wantonness claim which would also disappear as one necessary element for proving it is the showing of underlying tortious conduct by an employee. ... this whole action collapses. The 'common defense rule' would have this Court remand the action back to the State.”
In a Heparin case, Milling read the complaint as alleging that drug defendants failed to prepare medical providers for complications, and recommended remand because Baxter had not proved fraudulent joinder.
“The Court reads this particular passage of the Complaint to assert that the Drug Defendants failed to adequately prepare and inform the Medical Provider Defendants for the potential problems which can arise after having administered Heparin. ... This demonstrates a sufficient relationship of the claims to lead the Court to find that Baxter has failed to prove the third Trigg factor.”
Procedural preferences
An unconditional personal guaranty lets the creditor proceed directly against the guarantor without first exhausting remedies against the underlying business, which defeats the guarantor-affiliated company's attempt to intervene.
“The Court finds that ZLM has failed to show that it has an interest in this action. Specifically, the Court notes that, under its terms, the Defendant's Guaranty is unconditional and absolute ... Regions may pursue its remedy against Stewart without first seeking payment from ZLM.”
In Carr v. United States, he recommended dismissing a Section 2255 petition filed years after the one-year limitations period expired.
“Since he did not file an appeal, Carr's conviction became final on December 4, 2008 ... Petitioner did not file this action until August 2012, clearly beyond the one-year limitations period of AEDPA.”
Cautions
In Gatlin v. Stewart, he recommended summary judgment because the prisoner had not shown the warden knew of a specific threat of harm before the assault.
“Plaintiff's allegations fail to raise a question of fact as to the subjective component. ... Even a liberal construction of these allegations fails to demonstrate that Defendant Stewart was put on notice of a threat of actual harm.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is recommended that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that Plaintiff's action be dismissed with prejudice.”
“it is recommended that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 13) be granted and that this action be remanded back to the Mobile County Circuit Court for all further proceedings.”
“it is recommended that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 1, Exhibit A, pp. 33-34), filed by Defendants Boyer and CVSA, be denied and that the claims against them be allowed to proceed.”
“it is recommended that Defendant's summary judgment motion be granted and this action be dismissed with prejudice.”
“it is recommended that the motion for summary judgment of Defendants be granted and that Plaintiff's action against these Defendants be dismissed with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Docs. 16-17) is GRANTED (Docs. 16-17). Therefore, the Court Clerk is DIRECTED to take necessary action to REMAND this action to the Baldwin County Circuit Court for all further proceedings.”
“it is recommended that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 46) be granted, that Petitioner's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 44) be denied, that this action be dismissed, and that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent, the United States of America, and against Petitioner Otis G. Carr.”
“it is recommended that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 46) be granted...”
“it is recommended, without objection, that the Motion be granted and that Plaintiff's attorney be awarded an EAJA attorney's fee in the amount of $662.50.”
“ZLM's Motion to Intervene (Doc. 9) is DENIED...”
“...Regions' Motion to Determine Applicable Law (Doc. 10) is GRANTED; the substantive law to be applied in this action is Alabama law.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled consent Social Security cohort spans a decade (2005 and 2016), decided entirely on the judge's own consent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
- Section 636(c). His current docket, sampled from 2020 through 2026, consists almost entirely of petty-offense referrals (Central Violations Bureau citations, mostly from a nearby national wildlife refuge) resolved by plea, dismissal, or payment of a fine rather than by contested motion: consistent with a reduced, part-time recall 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 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Southern District of Alabama, not for Judge Milling: 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 | 352 | 10.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 98 | 6.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 238 | 10.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 8 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 352 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 424 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 389 | 10 months |
| Sep 2022 | 457 | 11.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 457 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 998 | 4.5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 407 | 9.4 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 Milling with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Milling, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Milling's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace