Lacey Alexander Collier
How Judge Collier rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Collier
Lacey A. Collier is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Collier received a commission on November 18, 1991. Judge Collier assumed senior status on November 20, 2003.
Judge Collier's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Collier's own (checked October 11, 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 Collier decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He required oral-contract plaintiffs to identify a clear agreement with no essential terms left open. He also declined to imply a contract or award equitable relief when an express contract governed the same subject matter.
“For an oral contract to be established, it must be shown that the parties reached a clear and definite agreement with no essential terms left open. ... This ‘meeting of the minds’ requirement was not met in this case.”
In a strip-search excessive-force case, Collier rejected the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted summary judgment to three correctional officers after weighing the prisoner’s resistance and limited injuries.
“After applying this deference to the Defendants in this case, the Court finds this factor to tip the scales in favor of summary judgment.”
In CCB v. BankTrust, he dismissed a stayed federal case with prejudice on res judicata grounds after the parallel state action reached final judgment and found the plaintiffs had a full opportunity to litigate there.
“abstention of a federal case pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine anticipates that, after the state court imposes judgment, dismissal will follow in federal court as a matter of res judicata.”
Procedural preferences
In Lyons v. Officer Fields, he rejected a magistrate judge's recommendation after de novo review and granted the correctional officers summary judgment on the excessive-force claim.
“the Report and Recommendation should be rejected and summary judgment granted to Defendant Correctional Officers Fields, Brasseur and Andrus.”
In Holliday v. Dixon, he dismissed an unauthorized successive Section 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner lacked appellate authorization.
“The petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction because the petition is an unauthorized successive petition.”
In Williams v. Florida Department of Corrections, he ordered a party to show cause after it divided its summary-judgment briefing into multiple partial motions that appeared to evade the local page limit.
“The purpose of the rule is surely defeated if a party were able to circumvent the rule simply by divvying up its motion according to claim or legal theory.”
Cautions
In Williams v. Parrot, he dismissed claims against three defendants after they were not timely served under Rule 4(m).
“Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Evans, Harris, and Permenter are DISMISSED.”
In Sullivan v. Nee, he granted the defendant summary judgment in a contract dispute, finding no definite oral agreement and explaining that any such agreement would be barred by the Statute of Frauds.
“even if an oral contract were found to have been formed, it would be barred by the applicable Statute of Frauds.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 57) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 61) is GRANTED.”
“All remaining pending motions are DENIED as moot. As all claims are resolved as against all parties in this case, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment and close this case.”
“Plaintiff's Motions To Amend Complaint and for Joinder (docs. 44, 48, 56) are DENIED.”
“The Court's March 22, 2010, Order denying Summary Judgment is REVERSED and is now GRANTED. Defendants' Renewed Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. 79) is GRANTED.”
“Respondent's motion to dismiss (doc. 14) is DENIED.”
“Petitioner's motion for summary judgment (doc. 21) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Raab's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 34) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Speer's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44) is DENIED and Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief is DISMISSED as moot.”
Self-authored order to show cause, rather than a ruling on a party motion: the defendant divided one summary-judgment motion into three partial motions to evade the local 25-page memorandum limit, with memoranda together exceeding 60 pages and statements of fact totaling 148 pages. Quote: 'The purpose of the rule is surely defeated if a party were able to circumvent the rule simply by divvying up its motion according to claim or legal theory.' The defendant was ordered to show cause within seven days why the motions should not be stricken.
“Defendant BankTrust's Motion to Lift Stay and Dismiss Action with Prejudice (Doc. 209) is GRANTED. This action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docs. 42, 64) is GRANTED.”
“The defendants' motions to dismiss, construed as a motion for summary judgment (docs. 34 & 39) are DENIED.”
“Summary judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiff.”
The court adopted an unobjected report and recommendation and dismissed the claims against three defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely serve them. Quote: 'The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on May 19, 2023 (ECF No. 70), recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Evans, Harris, and Permenter under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). ... Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Evans, Harris, and Permenter are DISMISSED.' Prejudice was not stated in the order.
“Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED”
“The petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction because the petition is an unauthorized successive petition.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 222.5 days (N = 20).
- A 2019 filing-window cohort of 20 cases shows a senior-judge docket dominated by pro se prisoner litigation: prisoner civil-rights suits under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (prison-conditions and excessive-force) and state-prisoner habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. 2254, with occasional Social Security disability appeals, all referred to magistrate judges for a report and recommendation.
- Current (2025) assignments follow the same pattern.
- Many pro se prisoner cases resolve quickly at screening, while contested habeas petitions run substantially longer.
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 | 7 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Collier: 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 Collier with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Collier, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Collier's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace