William Howard Steele
How Judge Steele decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Repeatedly declines to consider arguments a party raises for the first time in a reply brief, even where the argument might otherwise have merit, unless the party explains why it could not have been raised sooner -- a rule the court applies evenhandedly to both civil defendants and the government.
“Districts courts, including this one, ordinarily do not consider arguments raised for the first time on reply. … 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
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 federal criminal cases, will not entertain a pretrial motion that asks the court to weigh the sufficiency of the government's trial evidence before trial, treating such a request as an improper attempt to import civil summary-judgment practice into criminal procedure.
“By looking beyond the face of the indictment and ruling on the merits of the charges …, the district court in effect granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. [However,] [t]here is no summary judgment procedure in criminal cases. … [I]t is not for the courts to filter which criminal cases may reach the trial stage by reviewing the proffered evidence in advance.”
Cautions
Will dismiss a pro se habeas petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute once the petitioner stops responding to court orders and effectively abandons the case, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation without a contested hearing.
“ORDER ADOPTING the 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Order.”
Expects litigants to support factual and legal arguments with genuine authority and analysis; a party's single-sentence assertion of a novel legal doctrine, without developing the argument or grappling with contrary Alabama precedent, will not carry a dispositive motion.
“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.”
“ORDER ADOPTING the 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 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.
Put Judge Steele's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Steele actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Steele's own signed orders and cites them.