Jeffrey U. Beaverstock
How Judge Beaverstock rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Beaverstock
Jeffrey Uhlman Beaverstock is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Beaverstock received a commission on August 3, 2018.
Judge Beaverstock's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Beaverstock, 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 Beaverstock decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a motion attacking a retaliation claim's opposition element, the judge treated the plaintiff's specific, contemporaneous objection to a racially charged remark as sufficient at the pleading stage, distinguishing it from cases alleging only generalized opposition to discrimination.
“These factual allegations distinguish this action from, for example, Cochran v. S. Co., 2015 WL 3508018, at *2 (S.D. Ala. June 3, 2015), relied on by Defendant, wherein Judge Steele determined that the plaintiff’s complaint only alleged that she opposed discrimination generally, without specification that the discrimination was based on a characterization protected by Section 1981.”
On a qualified-immunity motion to dismiss, the judge declined to accept a federal Scope-of-Employment Certification at face value where the plaintiff's specific factual allegations (that a local sheriff's office, not a federal task force, actually investigated and directed the operation) raised a genuine threshold question the certification's conclusory 'based upon information supplied to me' language did not resolve.
“First, the Court finds the statement made by the Attorney General within the Certification to be, frankly, unhelpful: ‘based upon information supplied to me. . ..’”
Procedural preferences
In AmeriFirst Bank v. Williams, Beaverstock granted summary judgment on the bank’s contract claims after the defendants withdrew their opposition, finding no material factual dispute and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
“The Court finds further that there is no dispute of material fact and AmeriFirst is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on its breach of contract claims against the Defendants.”
On a jurisdictional challenge, the judge resolved the case entirely on the statutory bar to review and expressly declined to reach the government's alternative merits arguments once jurisdiction was found lacking.
“Because the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it does not address the additional reasons the United States contends support dismissal.”
In Herrine v. Folks, Beaverstock adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation after de novo review of the objected-to portions, dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice, and denied a certificate of appealability.
“After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made, the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated November 9, 2023 (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.”
Cautions
In Hickey v. QBE Specialty Insurance Company, Beaverstock rejected the homeowners’ summary judgment response after they failed to distinguish the insurer’s cited cases or cite any case supporting their own position.
“Plaintiffs fail to distinguish Ware or any of the cases upon which QBE relies. They cite no case whatever.”
In Schoen v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Beaverstock excluded the homeowner’s repair cost expert testimony after the expert could not explain the basis for major figures in the estimate he offered.
“This Court has concluded that the opinion testimony of Schoen’s designated expert, Darrell Steward, as to the reasonable and necessary costs of repair, is inadmissible.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion (Doc. 25) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Hayli Lape’s ‘Motion to Dismiss’ filed March 20, 2024 (Doc. 55), is GRANTED, and all of her claims and causes asserted against Defendant Sheriff Heath Jackson are DISMISSED without prejudice, with each party to bear his or her own costs”
“Sheriff Jackson’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 52) is accordingly found MOOT”
“For the reasons set out herein, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint and the United States’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant QBE’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in all respects.”
“Plaintiff Crystal M. Harrison’s ‘Motion to Dismiss’ filed March 20, 2024 (Doc. 50), is GRANTED, and all of her claims and causes asserted against Defendants Sheriff Heath Jackson and the County Commission of Escambia County, Alabama, are DISMISSED without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs”
“Upon due consideration, and for the reasons stated herein, Defendant Anderson’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. Defendant Anderson is dismissed from this action with prejudice.”
“it is ORDERED that Angela Lawshe’s claims against Baber’s, Inc. be DISMISSED with prejudice. Further, it is ORDERED that Babers, Inc. be awarded reasonable fees and costs to remedy Lawshe’s discovery failures.”
“It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 7, PageID.31) be and is hereby DENIED.”
“It is ORDERED that Petitioner Antonio Herrine’s habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and this action be DISMISSED without prejudice, and that Petitioner Herrine is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability or to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.”
“To the extent Plaintiff intended the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 13) as objections to the Report and Recommendation, they have been considered de novo and are overruled. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The Report and Recommendation is adopted as the Order of this Court.”
“For the reasons set out above, the Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.”
“The plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. 10) is GRANTED regarding Count One and DENIED regarding Counts Two, Three and Four. Count One is remanded to the Circuit Court of Choctaw County.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sampled early caseload spans diversity personal-injury and insurance suits, habeas petitions, prisoner civil-rights cases, and employment discrimination claims. Most sampled cases resolved by settlement or voluntary dismissal before a dispositive motion was decided; one produced a summary-judgment ruling with a citable disposition.
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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
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 Beaverstock: 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 Beaverstock with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Beaverstock, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Beaverstock's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace