Callie Virginia Smith Granade
How Judge Granade rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Granade
Callie V. Granade is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Granade received a commission on February 12, 2002. Judge Granade assumed senior status on March 7, 2016.
Judge Granade's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Granade's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Granade decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a constitutional challenge to a state marriage law, treats the states's asserted interest in encouraging biological-parent bonds as failing strict scrutiny where the law singles out one group of couples (same-sex couples) while leaving every other category of non-procreative or unwilling-to-procreate couples free to marry, reasoning that under-inclusiveness of this kind defeats any claim the law is narrowly tailored to its stated goal.
“Alabama does not exclude from marriage any other couples who are either unwilling or unable to biologically procreate. There is no law prohibiting infertile couples, elderly couples, or couples who do not wish to procreate from marrying. ... The Attorney General fails to demonstrate any rational, much less compelling, link between its prohibition and non-recognition of same-sex marriage and its goal of having more children raised in the biological family structure the state wishes to promote.”
In an ADEA reduction-in-force case, finds an employer's proffered business rationale for a layoff sufficient to defeat pretext where the plaintiff can only offer his own opinion or a co-worker's opinion that other, younger employees would have been the better choice for elimination, since courts do not sit as a super-personnel department second-guessing legitimate business judgment.
“Plaintiff also points to reasons why other salespersons might have been less qualified than plaintiff and would have made a better choice for elimination. However, 'a plaintiff may not establish that an employer's proffered reason is pretextual merely by questioning the wisdom of the employer's reasons.'”
Procedural preferences
In Wright v. Holifield, Granade denied a default-judgment motion with leave to refile because the plaintiff’s military-service affidavit stated only an unsupported belief that the defendant was not in service.
“Wright has stated that '[t]o the best of plaintiff's information and belief Holifield is not in the military service.' ... This is not sufficient to comply with the SCRA because Wright failed to offer facts to support the affidavit.”
In United States v. McIrby, Granade found a slim warrant affidavit sufficient for probable cause under the totality of the circumstances, including facts corroborating the informant’s controlled buy.
“Analyzing the affidavit under the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the information contained in the warrant, although slim, is sufficient to establish probable cause.”
Cautions
In United States v. Abston, Granade denied a Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction after finding it reargued the merits of a prior Section 2255 claim and was therefore an unauthorized successive petition.
“Despite the fact that Abston classifies his motion as attacking the integrity of the previous habeas proceedings, Abston is truly attacking the court's previous resolution of the claim on the merits. As such, Abston's motion is, in actuality, a second or successive habeas petition and this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider it.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“defendant's motion to strike (Doc. 49) is DENIED and defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 26) is GRANTED.”
“defendant's motion to strike (Doc. 49) is DENIED”
“the motions of Horace Sledge and Phillip Wheatley to dismiss (Docs. 13 & 43 ) are GRANTED”
“the motion of ARAMARK Sports Entertainment Services, Inc. to dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that plaintiff's claims for (1) violation of the 1st Amendment, (2) conspiracy, (3) wrongful termination, and (4) slander are hereby DISMISSED. ARAMARK's motion is DENIED as to plaintiff's age discrimination claim.”
“For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED.”
“The motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED based on this court's conclusion that the movant did not establish that it will suffer an irreparable injury before this lawsuit can be resolved on its merits without such extraordinary relief.”
“This case is before the court on a motion for a preliminary injunction and two motions to dismiss. The motions to dismiss, to the extent that the court considers them at this juncture, are DENIED.”
“After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated July 30, 2014, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.”
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 21), is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docs. 47), is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 21), is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docs. 47), is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for default judgment is hereby DENIED with leave to refile in conformity with the requirements of the SCRA.”
“For the reasons stated above, defendant’s motion to suppress (Doc. 13), is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) is decided as follows: a. Summary judgment as to Counts 1, 4, 5, and 7 is DENIED; b. Summary judgment as to Counts 2, 3, and 8 is GRANTED; and c. Summary judgment as to Count 6 is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as set out above.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) as to Counts 1 and 4 is DENIED.”
“the Court GRANTS Hudson's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 16), and Plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“For the reasons set forth herein above, Abston's Motion (Doc. 220) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed docket includes state-prisoner habeas petitions, often resolved on jurisdictional or procedural grounds; self-represented prisoner civil-rights matters; employment and disability claims; consumer and mortgage disputes; removed personal-injury and product-liability cases; and criminal plea and sentencing proceedings, primarily from the Mobile-area divisions.
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 Granade: 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 Granade with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Granade, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Granade's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace