Tilman E. Self III
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.”
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 sampled dockets illustrate caseload mix rather than contested-motion outcomes: a trade-secrets and non-compete suit that settled with an agreed permanent injunction, and a Wal-Mart premises-liability suit that produced a consent discovery protective order before resolving without another sampled ruling. The broader sample also includes prisoner civil-rights and habeas cases, employment discrimination, and Social Security appeals.
Put Judge Self's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Self actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Self's own signed orders and cites them.