Tilman E. Self III
How Judge Self rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Self
Tilman Eugene Self, III is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Self received a commission on March 7, 2018.
Judge Self's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Self'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 Self decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In evaluating whether a private attorney could be liable under Section 1983 for conspiring with state officials, the judge required specific, non-conclusory factual allegations of an actual agreement: generic references to 'conspiracy' were not enough, even construed liberally for a pro se plaintiff.
“Granger's references to 'conspiracy' are 'no more than conclusions,' and 'conclusory allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth.'”
On a statute-of-limitations dismissal spanning many counts and several pro se plaintiffs, the judge worked through the accrual date claim-by-claim rather than applying a single accrual theory to the whole complaint, reaching different outcomes for the search-based claims, the false-imprisonment claim, and the malicious-prosecution-type claim.
“The Court evaluates each count against these Defendants in turn.”
Procedural preferences
The judge construed pro se plaintiffs' pleadings liberally enough to identify a viable malicious-prosecution theory the defendants had described differently, rather than confining the analysis to the defendants' preferred characterization of the claim.
“The Court does not read these pro se Plaintiffs' claims so narrowly... Instead, the Court reads Plaintiffs' count as a malicious prosecution claim for lying before a grand jury.”
In a suit challenging delays in immigration petition decisions, the judge addressed jurisdiction first and dismissed without prejudice after finding review barred; he did not reach the defendants’ separate argument about the merits of the complaint.
“Without subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the claims, this Court does not reach analysis of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, including analysis of Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Thomas H. Wilson's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 3] and Christopher Brian Jarrard's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7] are GRANTED.”
“In sum, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion. The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion as to the insufficient-service defense... As to Rule 12(b)(6) the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion and DISMISSES counts 1-7 and 10 as to Defendants Thompson, Presley, Nelson, and Statham with prejudice because the statute of limitations expired before Plaintiffs filed suit.”
“Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate and Reconsider [Doc. 15].”
“In sum, Plaintiff reargues old positions that the Court considered and addressed in its prior Orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion fails to outline any reason the Court should vacate its prior Order or Judgment. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate and Reconsider [Doc. 15].”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Burnside's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 49].”
“Because the amount in controversy in this case does not meet the jurisdictional amount required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Fox's Motion to Remand and sends this action back to the Superior Court of Greene County, Georgia, where it was originally filed.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Daniel Freeland's Motion for Summary Judgment and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to ENTER Judgment accordingly and CLOSE this case.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 180], and the Court's previous Order [Doc. 178] stands as filed and the Clerk's Entry of Judgment [Doc. 179] shall remain unaltered.”
“Accordingly, because Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is legally ineffective, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion [Doc. 48] and STRIKES Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 46].”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS LM's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 24]. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter final judgment in favor of LM Insurance Corporation dismissing all claims against it.”
“Consistent with that recommendation, the Court GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 14] and DISMISSES Petitioner's habeas petition without prejudice giving him the right to file, in state court, either an out-of-time appeal or state habeas action in which he may raise his claims and any actual innocence allegations.”
“Finding no error, the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's R&R [Doc. 60] and MAKES IT THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Accordingly, because Plaintiff cannot prove causation and because Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Plaintiff's claims, the Court GRANTS Defendant Johnson's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 20].”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The selected cases include a trade-secret dispute, personal-injury litigation, prisoner filings, and a removed civil case. They were chosen for readable motion rulings and do not represent the full caseload mix.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, not for Judge Self: 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 Self with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Self, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Self's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace