Lacey Alexander Collier
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.”
On prison excessive-force claims he applies strong deference to officials' on-the-spot judgments and treats minor injuries as evidence of de minimis force. He will grant summary judgment to officers -- even reversing a magistrate judge's contrary recommendation -- where a prisoner provoked or resisted and the resulting injuries are slight. A plaintiff must show more than a dispute over the reasonableness of force.
“not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers, violates a prisoner's constitutional rights. ... a mere dispute over the reasonableness of force used in the prison setting is not grounds for a constitutional violation.”
Enforces preclusion firmly. Where a federal case has been stayed under Colorado River abstention pending parallel state litigation, he treats a subsequent state-court final judgment as triggering dismissal of the federal case on res judicata, and he will reject an 'inadequate state forum' argument absent a genuine denial of a full and fair opportunity to litigate. Decision-grade: do not expect a second bite once a parallel state case has gone to judgment.
“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
Resolves most matters through magistrate-judge reports and recommendations: he reviews timely objections de novo and adopts unobjected R&Rs, but he reviews independently and will REJECT a recommendation when he disagrees on the merits. A party who relies on a favorable R&R should still be prepared to defend it on de novo review.
“the Report and Recommendation should be rejected and summary judgment granted to Defendant Correctional Officers Fields, Brasseur and Andrus.”
In habeas matters he treats the appellate-authorization requirement for successive Section 2254 petitions as jurisdictional. Timely objections receive de novo review, but do not permit the district court to reach an unauthorized petition's merits.
“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.”
Enforces the court's local briefing rules. He will not let a party evade the 25-page summary-judgment memorandum limit by splitting one motion into several partial motions, and will order the party to show cause why the over-length, redundant filings should not be stricken. Keep summary-judgment briefing within the page limits and the statement of facts short and concise.
“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
Enforces service deadlines: he adopts recommendations dismissing defendants who are not timely served under Rule 4(m). Pro se and counseled plaintiffs alike should perfect service on every named defendant promptly.
“Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Evans, Harris, and Permenter are DISMISSED.”
Applies the Statute of Frauds to bar oral agreements that cannot be performed within one year absent a signed writing, and is skeptical of part-performance exceptions outside the land-conveyance context. A long-running oral arrangement is vulnerable before him unless documented.
“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.
Put Judge Collier's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Collier actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Collier's own signed orders and cites them.