Leslie Abrams Gardner
How Judge Gardner rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gardner
Leslie Abrams Gardner is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Gardner received a commission on November 20, 2014.
Judge Gardner's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gardner, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
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 Gardner decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a landlord-tenant dispute where the parties disagreed about diversity jurisdiction, the judge treated the parties' own eventual agreement that a non-diverse party was indispensable as effectively resolving the jurisdictional question, rather than independently re-litigating each Rule 19 factor from scratch.
“The Parties also agree that Motley 7 Brew is an indispensable party, and that the action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
In a contract dismissal, the judge held firmly to the rule that a plaintiff must point to the specific policy or contract provision breached: attaching the contract to the complaint is not, by itself, enough to survive dismissal.
“[A] plaintiff asserting a breach of contract claim must allege a particular contractual provision that the defendants violated to survive a motion to dismiss.”
Procedural preferences
On a false-arrest qualified-immunity motion, the judge focused on what the arresting officers reasonably knew from a witness's on-scene account, rather than second-guessing the thoroughness of their investigation after the fact.
“[O]fficers are not required to perform error-free investigations or independently investigate every proffered claim of innocence.”
The judge stayed discovery after a preliminary review suggested a pending dismissal motion could resolve or narrow the case; she did not treat the filing of the motion alone as enough to require a stay.
“Based on the Court’s preliminary review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and the briefing submitted in connection with Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss, a stay is appropriate in this case.”
Cautions
In an insurance-coverage dispute, the judge kept the duty-to-defend and duty-to-indemnify questions strictly separate, resolving only the (broader) duty to defend on summary judgment and declining to reach indemnification until the underlying liability suit is actually resolved.
“[A]n insurer's duty to indemnify is not ripe until the underlying lawsuit is resolved or the insured's liability is established.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join an Indispensable Party (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7), construed as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, is GRANTED and Defendant's Request for Oral Hearing (Doc. 8) is DENIED.”
“Defendants Rollins and Lindberg's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) is GRANTED and Defendant Thomasville Toyota's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Markel's Motion for Summary Judgment and Default Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading. Plaintiff may submit an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, as described above. The outstanding Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is DENIED as moot.”
“It is further ordered that this order renders Defendants Motion for Partial Motion to Dismiss (Docs 16 and 16.1) moot.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is GRANTED.”
“5:32 pm – Doc. 27 Motion to Suppress is Denied.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims asserted against Defendant are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 81) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled docket, an employment-discrimination suit removed from another district, illustrates caseload rather than a contested-motion outcome: the plaintiff's motion to dismiss his original complaint became moot when he amended it, and the case later ended on a failure-to-prosecute dismissal after the pro se plaintiff stopped communicating with the court.
- The broader sample also includes insurance-coverage, personal-injury, and consumer cases.
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 | 3 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 8 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 8 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 8 | 7 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 8 |
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 Gardner: 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 Gardner with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gardner, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gardner's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace