William Howard Steele
How Judge Steele rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Steele
William H. Steele is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Steele received a commission on March 14, 2003. Judge Steele assumed senior status on June 8, 2017.
Judge Steele's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Steele, 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 Steele decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Parker, Steele declined to consider Sto’s arguments first raised in its reply brief because Sto had not explained why it omitted them from its opening brief.
“Unless the offending party articulates an adequate reason for its failure to present in its principal brief an argument then available to it, the Court will not grant relief based on arguments first raised in reply.”
In an employment discrimination case, found that a defendant's complete failure to identify a specific reason for a hiring decision, rather than simply an unpersuasive reason, is fatal to summary judgment, distinguishing the defendant's stronger footing on a companion claim where it had at least articulated a rationale the plaintiff could rebut.
“The defendants concede that none of the assistant superintendents can recall any discussion about whether to interview the plaintiff, … and the defendants offer no evidence of what motivated any – much less all – of the three assistant superintendents not to select the plaintiff for interview. … Speculation in brief about what could have motivated the decision-makers is no substitute for the legally required evidence in the record of what actually motivated them.”
Rejected an argument that a plaintiff's use of the federal interpleader mechanism was improper 'forum shopping,' finding that filing an interpleader action to resolve genuinely competing claims to a limited insurance fund is exactly the scenario the device was designed to address, not tactical gamesmanship.
“This is a textbook scenario for which the interpleader device was created. … This course of conduct is not procedural fencing and does not support Wilton / Brillhart abstention.”
Procedural preferences
Does not treat claims as abandoned merely because a plaintiff fails to oppose a dismissal motion. The court first tests whether the movant carried its initial burden, while declining to invent arguments the silent plaintiff could have raised.
“the Court will review the merits of the defendant's position and, if it is clearly incorrect or inadequate to satisfy the defendant's initial burden, will deny the motion despite the plaintiff's failure to respond.”
Rejects 'placeholder' motions for class certification filed early in a case before any discovery has occurred, insisting that a plaintiff seeking Rule 23 certification must actually meet its burden of proof rather than file a protective motion to guard against a defendant's tactic of paying off the named plaintiff to moot the case.
“The party seeking class certification has the burden of proof, rather than merely a burden of pleading. … Plaintiff has identified no authority – and the Court is aware of none – that would relax these requirements and lower these burdens where a movant couches his Rule 23 motion in preliminary terms.”
In Young’s criminal case, Steele denied a pretrial motion challenging the expected trial evidence of constructive possession, applying circuit precedent against deciding evidentiary sufficiency before trial.
“On the authority of Salman, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.”
In an insurance dispute, the court considered a new collateral-attack defense at summary judgment after an earlier dismissal motion failed. It rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to treat the later motion as a time-barred reconsideration request, especially after discovery had closed.
“The proposition seems especially doubtful when the motion for summary judgment, as here, is filed years after the motion to dismiss and after discovery has concluded.”
Cautions
In Jackson v. Wheeler-White, Steele adopted a recommendation and dismissed the habeas case without prejudice after the petitioner failed to prosecute and obey a court order.
“It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Order.”
In Parker v. Exterior Restorations, he found Sto’s seller and privity argument unclear and traced the confusion to Alabama opinions using seller as shorthand for retailer.
“Sto’s argument morphs from denying it is a seller to denying it is in privity with the plaintiffs. … Its argument is not a model of clarity, but Sto appears to have been led astray by statements in some Alabama opinions seeming to use 'seller' as an unfortunate shorthand for 'retailer.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the plaintiffs’ claim for fraud under Count III based on the April 15 representation described in paragraph 68 of the third amended complaint and is in all other respects denied.”
“it is ORDERED that Christopher P. Capocci’s Petition for a Writ of habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 dated August 25, 2021 (Doc. 8) be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Count Three and granted with respect to Counts One and Two, to the extent based on the 1992 election. Count Three is dismissed with prejudice. Counts One and Two, to the extent based on the 1992 election, are dismissed without prejudice. In all other respects, the motion to dismiss is denied.”
“For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant Estate of Bratton’s arguments for discretionary abstention pursuant to Wilton / Brillhart principles are unconvincing. On that basis, the Estate’s Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss (doc. 15) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Corps’ motion to dismiss is denied.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Sto’s motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the misrepresentation aspect of Count XII and is in all other respects denied.”
“The motion to dismiss filed by WCS and Dittenber is granted. Count XII is dismissed in its entirety as to WCS and Dittenber and is dismissed with respect to misrepresentation as to Sto.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s claims concerning the non-renewal of her contract at Fonveille is granted. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s non-hire at Dickson is granted as to her Section 1981 claim and denied as to her Title VII and Section 1983 claims of race discrimination.”
“It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Order.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on All Claims of William Ronald McIntyre (doc. 406) is denied.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Fraud, Misrepresentation and RICO Claims (doc. 405) is moot as to the misrepresentation and unjust enrichment claims, which either were not pleaded or have been abandoned in the Pretrial Order, but is otherwise granted. The fraud and RICO causes of action brought by plaintiffs Fisher, Reed, Byrd and McIntyre are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants did not move for summary judgment on plaintiff Sharon Greer’s fraud and RICO claims; therefore, those claims remain pending and will proceed to trial.”
“ORDER entered denying 29 Motion to Suppress as to Tre'Von Devonte Lewis as further set out.”
“Accordingly, defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. 26, at #6) is granted. Plaintiff’s state-law claim of outrage against Bancorp and Webb is dismissed. Plaintiff’s state-law claim of negligent/wanton hiring, training, supervision and retention against Bancorp is likewise dismissed.”
“ORDER granting 10 Motion to Remand as set out and the Motion 16 to Strike is DENIED. Because subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, this action is hereby remanded to the Circuit Court of Perry County, Alabama.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
His general civil docket spans insurance-coverage and bad-faith disputes, consumer and fair-credit claims, employment discrimination, personal-injury and products-liability removals, civil-rights suits (including prisoner conditions-of-confinement claims), Social Security and immigration administrative-review actions, habeas petitions, and forfeiture and garnishment proceedings, together with a criminal docket, drawn primarily from the Mobile-area divisions.
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 | 4 | 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 Steele: 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 Steele with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Steele, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Steele's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace