Frank D. Whitney
How Judge Whitney rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Whitney
Frank DeArmon Whitney is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Whitney received a commission on July 5, 2006. Judge Whitney assumed senior status on December 1, 2024.
Judge Whitney's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Whitney, 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.
- Certification and Report of FRCP 26(f) Conf and Discovery Plan ↗
- Initial Scheduling Order pursuant to Standing Order ↗
- Standing Order Governing Calendaring ↗
- Standing Order Governing Civil Case Management ↗
- Standing Order Governing Criminal Cases ↗
- Standing Order Governing Jury Selection and Instruction ↗
- Standing Order on Protocol of Discovery ↗
- Standing Protective Order for Civil Cases ↗
Key rules
Filing
Exhibits totaling at least 25 pages require a bound, indexed, tabbed courtesy copy for chambers.
“If a party’s exhibits aggregate to 25 or more pages, a courtesy copy of the exhibits (bound, indexed, and tabbed for ease of reference) shall be mailed or hand delivered to Chambers as soon as practicable after filing.”
Motions
A motion for extension of time must include a separately submitted proposed order.
“Any motion for an extension must also be accompanied by a separately submitted proposed form of order.”
Discovery
After a discovery dispute arises, parties have 14 calendar days to arrange an informal court conference before moving to compel.
“within fourteen (14) calendar days after a discovery dispute arises,3 to schedule and submit to an informal telephonic conference before the referral magistrate judge (or the presiding district judge, if the magistrate judge is unavailable prior to the expiration of the 14 days).”
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 Whitney decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Marler v. Commissioner of Social Security, Whitney remanded because the administrative decision did not explain why a moderate concentration, persistence, or pace limitation required no corresponding restriction on staying on task.
“the Commissioner's Decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum and Order.”
In Haynes v. Quinn, Whitney granted summary judgment on an excessive-force claim after finding that video contradicted the plaintiff’s account of immediate extreme pain from the restraints.
“The video evidence clearly contradicts the Plaintiff’s version of events that the restraints Lay applied were so excessively tight that they caused immediate extremely pain, and that Nurse Starrette should have immediately corrected the same, such that no jury could believe it.”
In Celanese, Whitney enforced a mandatory North Carolina forum clause that continued to govern an implied-in-fact relationship after the written sales agreement expired, defeating a personal-jurisdiction dismissal motion.
“The forum-selection clause is therefore valid and enforceable, acting as a waiver to personal jurisdiction.”
In Foster, Whitney certified a freight-broker class after finding that shared contract issues predominated and class treatment was superior to individual suits.
“the Court finds that both the predominance and superiority requirements have been satisfied by Plaintiffs”
Procedural preferences
In NGM Insurance, Whitney retained a declaratory-judgment coverage action after weighing the Fourth Circuit factors with federalism, efficiency, and comity; he allowed joinder of another potentially interested insurer.
“In looking at the case as a whole and all of the Fourth Circuit factors together, balanced by considerations of federalism, efficiency and comity, this Court will exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs declaratory judgment action.”
Cautions
In Tipton v. Page, Whitney dismissed an amended prisoner complaint with prejudice after the plaintiff failed to cure the defects identified in an earlier dismissal and again presented a pleading that did not comply with Rule 8.
“the Court will not scour and piece apart Plaintiff's rambling stream-of-conscious pleading to state a claim for him”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Commissioner's Decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum and Order.”
On screening an amended prisoner civil-rights complaint, Whitney dismissed with prejudice after the plaintiff failed to cure defects identified in the first dismissal. He found most claims time-barred, concluded that the remaining medication-delay theory alleged negligence rather than a constitutional violation, and declined to reconstruct a rambling pleading for the plaintiff.
On screening a prisoner's deliberate-indifference complaint, Whitney dismissed without prejudice and allowed 30 days to amend. The official-capacity damages claims were barred, the allegations against the custody officer did not show conscious disregard of a serious medical need, and the complaint did not allege personal involvement by the supervisory defendants.
“The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 46] is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Insofar as the Plaintiff means to exclude that evidence from being presented ... at trial, such is premature. The Motion in Limine will, therefore, be denied.”
“The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not carried his burden of demonstrating that the Defendants had control over the video footage, or that the loss of the video footage was accompanied by an adequately culpable state of mind. Accordingly, the Motion to Stay will be denied.”
“This Motion is premature, as such relief that would only be relevant if the matter were to proceed to trail. It will, therefore be denied.”
“The Defendants’ Motion to Stay the deadline to respond to the Motion in Limine [Doc. 57] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff's Amended Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, (Doc. No. 4), is DENIED without prejudice to pay the filing fee or refile an amended Application within twenty-one (21) days of this Order.”
Sua sponte initial review of a pro se prisoner Section 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and 1915A; complaint dismissed without prejudice with 30 days to amend: "Plaintiff's Complaint fails initial review under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim for relief and shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE".
Initial review of a pro se Section 1983 amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and 1915A; federal claims dismissed with prejudice and supplemental state-law claims dismissed without prejudice: "Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. 9] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim for relief, except for Plaintiff's state law claims, which are DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE".
Initial review of a pro se prisoner ADA/Rehabilitation Act and Eighth Amendment complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) and 1915A; complaint dismissed without prejudice with 30 days to amend, and two improper letters stricken: "Plaintiff's Complaint fails initial review under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim for relief and shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE".
On initial review of an amended prisoner complaint, the court allowed the official-capacity ADA claim against three prison officials to proceed and dismissed the remaining claims and defendants. The order resolved no party motion.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs causes of action for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, and conversion are DISMISSED. Plaintiffs causes of action for open account and account stated are REMANDED to the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 447 days (N = 10).
- The sampled caseload includes several sealed False Claims Act matters, transferred product-liability cases, criminal matters, Social Security appeals, and self-represented prisoner civil-rights and habeas cases.
- The longest sampled case durations were in multi-year sealed False Claims Act matters; transferred product-liability cases also appear in the sample but do not supply Whitney-authored pretrial rulings.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 11 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 6 |
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 North Carolina, not for Judge Whitney: 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 | 1,033 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 193 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 586 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 248 | 13.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 6 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,033 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,154 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 958 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,210 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 951 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 873 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 816 | 9.1 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 Whitney with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Whitney, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Whitney's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace