Terry Alvin Doughty
How Judge Doughty rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Doughty
Terry Alvin Doughty is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Doughty received a commission on March 7, 2018.
Judge Doughty's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Doughty, 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.
- Chief Judge Terry A. Doughty ↗
- Rule 26(f) Case Management Report ↗
- Pretrial Order Form ↗
- Exhibit List Form ↗
- Witness List Form ↗
Key rules
Filing
Email Word courtesy copies of contested motion papers; manually deliver attachments longer than 50 pages.
“Judge Doughty requires courtesy copies of contested motions, supporting memorandum, and responses. Copies in Word should be e-mailed to chambers at: [email protected] . If attachments to the motion exceed 50 pages, copies should be manually delivered to chambers at the address above.”
Motions
The court has no regular motion date but may order oral argument.
“Judge Doughty does not maintain a regular motion date, but may order oral argument.”
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).
- General Order 0001-2025: Procedures for Access and Management of Sealed or Restricted Documents ↗
- General Order 0001-2024: Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- SO 1.74 Service and Scheduling of Immigration Habeas Cases ↗
- SO 1.75 Regarding Third-Party Litigation Funding ↗
How Judge Doughty decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a challenge to the CMS vaccine mandate, he granted the plaintiff states a preliminary injunction after finding that the federal defendants lacked authority to implement the mandate.
“Finding that the Government Defendants do not have the authority to implement the CMS Mandate, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 2] and IMMEDIATELY ENJOINS and RESTRAINS the Government Defendants from implementing the CMS Mandate.”
In McWilliams’s employment case, Doughty let her disability-discrimination claims proceed to a jury because the record left a factual dispute over the employer’s stated performance reasons.
“resolution of McWilliams’ claim of discrimination is not appropriate on summary judgment and the genuine disputes of material fact must be resolved by the jury.”
Procedural preferences
In a pro se employment suit, he granted a Rule 12(b)(5) motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to serve the complaint.
“For the foregoing reasons, Cleco's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 12] is GRANTED, and Gray's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Cautions
In an ADA termination suit, he denied the employer’s summary-judgment motion because factual disputes remained about the worker’s disability, the employer’s perception of it, and the reason for discharge.
“For the reasons set forth, Mid South's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 25] is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, FEMA's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and LCP's claims against it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For the reasons set forth, Mid South's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 25] is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, LC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 21] is GRANTED. Aguillard's religious discrimination and retaliation claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Doc. No. 26] filed by Defendants Alex Azar, II and Seema Verma, is GRANTED-IN-PART, as to each Plaintiff”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 28] filed by Palmetto GBA, L.L.C., is DENIED, as moot.”
“Having considered the pleadings, the record, the applicable laws, evidence, and oral arguments of counsel, for the reasons set forth herein, this Court finds Plaintiff States have satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, Plaintiff States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.”
“Finding that the Government Defendants do not have the authority to implement the CMS Mandate, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 2] and IMMEDIATELY ENJOINS and RESTRAINS the Government Defendants from implementing the CMS Mandate.”
“IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“JUDGMENT granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying Plaintiffs' request for class action certification. Signed by Judge Terry A Doughty on 7/4/2023.”
“the motion is GRANTED. The claims for breach of contract are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and to the extent Wade seeks to assert them, she is compelled to do so in arbitration.”
“Wade's claims based in negligence (Count 2 and part of Count 4) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and to the extent Counts 1 and 4 cover conduct prior to January 21, 2016, those Claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Cleco's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 12] is GRANTED, and Gray's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying as moot 6 Motion for TRO and 7 Amended Motion for TRO. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources, the Administration for Children and Families, and the Office of Head Start, along with their Secretary, directors, administrators, and employees are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from implementing the Head Start Mandate set forth in 86 Fed. Reg. 68052 (November 30, 2021), as to all Head Start staff, volunteers, contractors, students, and all others covered by said Head Start Mandate. Signed by Judge Terry A Doughty on 1/1/2022.”
“Because the scope of the Preliminary Injunction includes Louisiana and Ohio, the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Brick and Trenn is moot. ... IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 4] filed By Brick and Trenn is DENIED AS MOOT.”
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 12 |
| Mar 2025 | 7 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 7 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 4 |
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 United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, not for Judge Doughty: 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 | 1,541 | 13.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 287 | 8.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 832 | 13.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 398 | 16.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 27.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,541 | 13.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,194 | 16.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,966 | 10.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,186 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,330 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,064 | 11.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,190 | 11.5 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 Doughty with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Doughty, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Doughty's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace