Gordon Miles Davis
How Judge Davis rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Davis
G. Miles Davis joined the Northern District of Florida as a U.S. magistrate judge in 1996 after a career as a civil trial lawyer and Marine. He is based in Pensacola and continues to hear matters on recall.
Judge Davis's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Davis'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 Davis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Anderson’s Social Security appeal, Davis recommended reversal after finding that the ALJ overlooked treating physician Matson’s records already in the file and failed to weigh his opinion under the applicable factors.
“By discounting Dr. Matson's opinion because they were not supported by his own records (because there were allegedly no such records) the ALJ committed error, and the undersigned is not willing to accept this error as harmless.”
In Pettaway v. Astrue, he recommended affirming the disability denial because the ALJ gave supported reasons for discounting the treating physician's opinion and the claimant's pain testimony.
“It was clearly within his ‘realm of judging’ to make a credibility determination from these facts, and he did so ... He did not improperly reject the opinion of Dr. Hakima, and he did not improperly reject Ms. Pettaway's subjective complaints of pain.”
Procedural preferences
For petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he addressed administrative exhaustion before the merits and treated the Bureau of Prisons' four-level grievance process as jurisdictional under then-controlling circuit law. A prediction that the agency would deny relief did not excuse exhaustion as futile.
“That the petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 (doc. 1) be denied without prejudice as this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of petitioner's claim due to his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit.”
In Sierra v. Department of Homeland Security, he recommended dismissal of a Section 2241 petition because an immigration detainer did not place the prisoner in DHS or ICE custody.
“Because petitioner is not ‘in custody’ of the DHS or ICE, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to address his claims.”
Cautions
In Cabrera v. United States District Court, he recommended dismissal at screening because the prisoner's civil-rights complaint challenged the validity of his conviction and sought release, relief that belonged in habeas.
“Plaintiff's Bivens claims challenge the validity of his plea (what is now a conviction), and seek release from confinement. Such claims are in the nature of habeas corpus and are not cognizable in a civil rights action.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“That the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED without prejudice due to petitioner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit.”
“Because petitioner is not ‘in custody’ of the DHS or ICE, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to address his claims. ... it respectfully RECOMMENDED: 1. That the petition for writ of habeas corpus, (doc. 1), as supplemented (doc. 22) be DISMISSED.”
“That the petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 (doc. 1) be denied without prejudice as this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of petitioner's claim due to his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit.”
“Respondent's motion for leave to file a response (doc. 14) is GRANTED.”
“it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED, that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant, and that the clerk be directed to close the file.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 2) is GRANTED”
“it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration consistent with this report and recommendation, and that the clerk be directed to close the file.”
“That plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss (doc. 43) be granted and this case be dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its own attorney's fees, if any, and costs.”
“That defendant's renewed motion to dismiss his § 2255 motion (doc. 191) be granted and that his motion for extension of time (doc. 192) be denied as moot.”
“That plaintiff Peters' notice of voluntary dismissal (doc. 9) be granted, that this case be dismissed without prejudice, and the clerk be directed to close the file.”
R&R: sua sponte review of a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and IFP motion captioned for a Florida state circuit court (Second Judicial Circuit, Santa Rosa County), evidently misfiled in federal court by the plaintiff or someone on his behalf. Recommended dismissal without prejudice so plaintiff could refile in the intended state forum. This court-initiated dismissal had no party movant. Quote: That this cause be dismissed without prejudice so that plaintiff may file his petition in the intended forum.
R&R: sua sponte dismissal recommendation after plaintiff, granted IFP status and assessed a partial filing fee, failed to pay it or respond to two court orders (one returned undeliverable) and had another of his cases dismissed on the same ground. Recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. This court-initiated dismissal had no party movant. Quote: That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the court.
“That plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (doc. 22) be GRANTED. That judgment be entered for the plaintiff jointly and severally against defendants Whiteman Masonry, Inc. and Charles J. Whiteman a/k/a Charles Whiteman a/k/a Chuck Whiteman in the amount of $82,294.39, plus accrued interest at 18% per annum through March 15, 2007 of $28,724.75, plus a per diem of $40.58 thereafter through the date that judgment is entered.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- His assigned docket of record is dominated by Social Security disability appeals (DIWC/DIWW and SSID, e.g. the Apfel / Barnhart / Astrue / Colvin cases) decided by consent, alongside prisoner prison-condition / civil-rights cases (42 U.S.C. 1983) and habeas, plus a tail of diversity foreclosure, FLSA, environmental, and student-loan-recovery matters.
- As a Pensacola/Panama City magistrate he also carries criminal-duty work, petty-offense (-po), misdemeanor/initial (-mj), and miscellaneous (-mc) dockets such as a foreign legal-assistance request, which are short-duration intake matters, not civil dispositions.
- Filed-to-terminated durations on the 26-case civil sample (filed 1996-2013) ran 148-1061 days (median 263); the Social Security appeals cluster in the ~150-380 day range while the long tail is the contested prisoner and miscellaneous cases (Otero 965 days; Peoples foreclosure 1061 days).
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 United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, not for Judge Davis: 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 | 148,428 | 47.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 30 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 148,385 | 47.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 4 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 148,428 | 47.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 140,479 | 43.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 36,307 | 27.8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 57,845 | 21.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 14,972 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,038 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,148 | 7.5 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 Davis with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Davis, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Davis's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace