James Randal Hall
How Judge Hall rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hall
James Randal Hall is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Hall received a commission on April 29, 2008.
Judge Hall's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hall, 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.
- Procedures for Electronic Filing of Presentence Investigation Reports and Sentencing Documents ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Electronic Filing of Presentence Investigation Reports and Sentencing Documents ↗
- Defendant’s Statement Regarding Appearance via Electronic Means ↗
- Defendant’s Statement Regarding Appearance via Electronic Means (fillable PDF) ↗
- Instructions and Procedures for Hearing by Electronic Means ↗
- Electronic Exhibit Tag ↗
Key rules
Filing
In Hall criminal cases, both government and defense counsel must file a response to the initial presentence report.
“1. Counsel for the United States and the defendant MUST each file a response to the initial”
Filing
A party without objections to the presentence report must file a statement saying so.
“party must file a statement of no objections on the record.”
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).
How Judge Hall decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Anderson, Hall read the policy to permit the insurer to set current monthly cost-of-insurance rates below the guaranteed rate without limiting those rates to the guaranteed rate's listed factors.
“It is the guaranteed COI rate that is ‘based on the insured's sex, attained age and premium class on the date of issue.’”
In one antitrust pleading dispute, the judge distinguished a broker’s individual losses from facts showing harm to competition across the market and dismissed the federal claim.
“Harm to an individual competitor will not suffice to state an antitrust violation.”
Procedural preferences
Faced with a party trying to dismiss its own case on jurisdictional grounds after choosing that forum, the judge treated personal jurisdiction as forfeited by the act of filing there, and resolved the real dispute (which of two parallel suits should proceed) under the first-filed rule instead.
“By filing in this Court, Plaintiffs submitted to the power of this Court to rule on the issues requested by them.”
In one pleading dispute, the judge denied a proposed second amendment after finding it added no material facts or claims, then treated motions directed at that proposed pleading as moot.
“the second amended complaint does not provide any additional material facts or state any additional claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Before the Court is Defendant Wilco Life Insurance Company's renewed motion to dismiss. (Doc. 42.) For the following reasons, the motion is granted.”
“Thus, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss (doc. 5) and DIRECTS the Clerk to TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.”
“the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion and DISMISSES the petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”
“The Court further DENIES as MOOT Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel, (doc. no. 2)”
“The Court further DENIES as MOOT Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel, (doc. no. 2), motion to stay case, (doc. no. 3)”
“The Court further DENIES as MOOT Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel, (doc. no. 2), motion to stay case, (doc. no. 3), and motion for evidentiary hearing or demand for release, (doc. no. 10).”
“Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 25) and motion to amend the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 26) are DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint (Doc. 8) is therefore DENIED AS MOOT”
“Plaintiff's motion for leave to file her first amended complaint and extension of time to serve Defendant (Doc. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for mediation (Doc. 15)”
“DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint (Doc. 17)”
“all pending motions pertaining to the second amended complaint (Docs. 23, 24, 28, 30, 34) are DENIED AS MOOT”
“motion for reconsideration (Doc. 43) is DENIED”
“Defendant IAP World Services, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 21) is hereby GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint (doc. no. 10) is hereby GRANTED.”
“Defendant Martin Ruiz’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness (doc. no. 38) and his related Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 39) are DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order and Substitute the Ford Plantation Association in place of the Ford Plantation, LLC, as party Defendant (doc. no. 33), is GRANTED.”
“The Ford Plantation Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 42) is also GRANTED.”
“DENIES Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis, (doc. no. 2),”
“the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion and DISMISSES the instant petition. brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, without prejudice.”
“the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion and DISMISSES as untimely the instant petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Hall's Augusta-Division civil docket in the sampled window includes insurance/ERISA disputes, consumer-protection (FDCPA) claims, employment cases, prisoner and habeas petitions, and commercial/trademark disputes.
- Several sampled cases (an FLSA wage claim, an ERISA benefits dispute, an FDCPA claim, an ADA/FMLA employment claim) resolved through joint settlement or stipulated dismissal with prejudice before any contested motion was decided, so they are reflected here as caseload color but not counted in the motion stats.
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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 8 | 5 |
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 Southern District of Georgia, not for Judge Hall: 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 | 558 | 7.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 29 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 523 | 7.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 2 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 558 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 565 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 563 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 551 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 532 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 526 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 533 | 8.8 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 Hall with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hall, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hall's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace