Charles Ashley Royal
How Judge Royal rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Royal
C. Ashley Royal is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Royal received a commission on December 21, 2001. Judge Royal assumed senior status on September 1, 2016.
Judge Royal's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Royal'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).
- 2026-03, In re: Standing Order Section 2241 Immigration Petitions for Bond Hearings at Stewart Detention Center ↗
- 2026-01, In re: Standing Order Immigration Petitions for Bond Hearings at Stewart Detention Center ↗
- 2025-02, In re: Standing Order Access and Mgmt of Sealed Docs ↗
- 2021-01, In re: Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
How Judge Royal decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a warrant challenge, the judge drew a sharp line between a warrant that specifies the crime under investigation with temporal or subject-matter limits (upheld) and one that authorizes an open-ended search of an entire social-media account (unconstitutionally overbroad), and held the good-faith exception does not rescue the latter.
“the Court finds the Instagram Warrant is unconstitutionally overbroad, and the good faith exception inapplicable under the circumstances here”
Applying res judicata against a serial pro se litigant, the judge looked past the plaintiff's attempt to plead new legal theories and asked only whether the new suit arose from the same underlying facts as a previously dismissed suit: if so, it is barred even for claims that could have been, but were not, raised the first time.
“Res judicata bars all the claims against these Defendants, even those that were not asserted in Ashford I, because Plaintiff could have asserted them in Ashford I.”
In a municipal-liability case, the judge required more than a superficial similarity between prior incidents and the plaintiff's own: a pattern of police 'use of force' complaints did not establish the city was on notice of a need to train officers on handcuffing and detaining juveniles, a different alleged deficiency.
“That the previous incidents and this case involve police encounters is not sufficient to transfer the need for training in one specific area—use of force—to the need for training in another—handcuffing and detaining a teenager”
Procedural preferences
The judge treats reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy confined to three narrow grounds (intervening change in law, new evidence, or clear error/manifest injustice) and has denied every reconsideration or Rule 60(b) motion seen in this record on that basis, including from pro se litigants who resubmit the same materials or point to general conditions evidence unrelated to their own case.
“the Court should only grant these motions in three limited circumstances: (1) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence has been discovered which was not previously available to the parties in the exercise of due diligence; or (3) reconsideration is needed to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice”
Faced with a genuine service-of-process defect (the wrong corporate name on the summons), the judge focused the analysis on whether the defendant had actual, complete knowledge of the claims against it and suffered real prejudice, rather than dismissing on the technical naming error alone, and denied dismissal because the defendant plainly knew it had been sued.
“Because it is undisputed that Bostick had complete and total knowledge of Plaintiff's claims against it, Bostick suffered no actual prejudice from the misnomer in the summons.”
Cautions
The judge distinguishes an individual officer's excessive-force liability from a supervisor's liability for that same conduct: a supervisor who investigated and disciplined the officer after the fact is not liable even where the officer himself loses qualified immunity, so counsel should not assume a finding against the line officer automatically extends up the chain of command.
“the supervisors did investigate and act when Ferrer's use of force was determined to be a violation of BCSO policies... the sanctions imposed here were real”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES Bostick's Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process [Doc. 45].”
“Plaintiff's construed Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is DENIED.”
Directed a pro se plaintiff to respond to a pending motion to dismiss within 14 days and warned that the case could be dismissed if he did not. Rules on no party motion itself; the underlying motion to dismiss was later granted on the merits.
“Therefore, the Court DISMISSES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 26] without prejudice to Defendants' right to move to dismiss again after Plaintiff files her Amended Complaint.”
“Defendant Sheriff Joe Chapman's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 27] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Chapman are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.”
“Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [Docs. 33 & 37] are GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Government's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 37] and hereby ORDERS the pending Indictment in Case No. 3:20-CR-61(CAR) against Defendant Gerrick Cooper to be DISMISSED.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Government's Motion to Dismiss Indictment [Doc. 528] and hereby ORDERS the pending Indictment against Rickshun Willingham to be DISMISSED.”
“Mercery's Motion to Suppress evidence seized pursuant to the Geolocation Warrant [Doc. 46] is DENIED.”
“the Court finds the good faith exception inapplicable under the circumstances here, and Defendant's Motion to Suppress evidence seized pursuant to the Instagram Warrant is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, Movant's motion for the issuance of a writ of audita querela (Doc. 88) is GRANTED. The Court's January 2016 judgment is VACATED and REIMPOSED with the modification that Movant may serve his twenty-eight month sentence on supervised release.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 18] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Maddox's First Amendment retaliation claims against Manager Williams and Mayor Girtz are DISMISSED. Maddox's First Amendment retaliation claim and GWA claim against ACC will go forward.”
“Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 3]. Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against Defendants are hereby DISMISSED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 12] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED.”
“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time [Doc. 15] and finds his Motions to Withdraw as Counsel and for Extension of Time [Doc. 16] are MOOT.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 313.5 days (N = 12).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 211 days (N = 5).
The sampled dockets span prisoner civil-rights suits, Section 2254/2241 habeas petitions, Social Security disability appeals, employment and civil-rights claims (including two suits against the same county board of commissioners), consumer-debt-collection and Truth in Lending disputes, personal-injury and premises-liability claims, a RICO suit, contract and insurance disputes, an immigration-mandamus suit, and an arbitration-confirmation petition: a broad general civil and criminal docket typical of a long-serving district judge.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 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 Middle District of Georgia, not for Judge Royal: 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 | 737 | 6.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 281 | 6.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 443 | 6.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 8 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 5 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 737 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 648 | 8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 668 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 727 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 728 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 643 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 710 | 8.1 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 Royal with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Royal, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Royal's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace