Charles E. Atchley, Jr.
How Judge Atchley rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Atchley
Charles Edward Atchley, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Atchley received a commission on December 22, 2020.
Judge Atchley's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Atchley, 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.
- Judicial Preferences ↗
- Sample Final Pretrial Order (PDF) ↗
- Scheduling Order (PDF) ↗
- Model Jury Instructions ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Keep correspondence to routine, nonmerits matters; copy opposing counsel on email to chambers.
“This should be avoided except for routine matters that do not address the merits of any motion or pending case, such as scheduling, advising the Court of a settlement, etc. An email may be sent to [email protected], copying opposing counsel.”
Motions
Reasonable requests to exceed the page limitation will be considered, but generally such requests are denied unless good cause exists.
“Reasonable requests to exceed the page limitation will be considered, but generally such requests are denied unless good cause exists.”
Discovery
Lawyers should (1) meet and confer and use their best efforts to resolve discovery disputes promptly among themselves, but (2) bring such disputes promptly to the attention of the Court so that they may be resolved quickly.
“Lawyers should (1) meet and confer and use their best efforts to resolve discovery disputes promptly among themselves, but (2) bring such disputes promptly to the attention of the Court so that they may be resolved quickly.”
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 Atchley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When a party missed the tighter deadline for a motion to alter or amend judgment, the judge construed a late-filed reconsideration motion under the stricter Rule 60(b) standard rather than treating the label the party chose as controlling.
“Plaintiff may proceed only in accordance with Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(b). This is because motions brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) must be brought within 28 days after the entry of judgment.”
In granting a preliminary injunction against a federal agency, the judge limited the scope of relief to the actual plaintiffs before the court rather than issuing a broader nationwide injunction, following a Sixth Circuit concurrence's caution against universal injunctions.
“The Court is heavily persuaded by this concurrence and concludes that this preliminary injunction should only apply to Plaintiffs.”
In one bankruptcy appeal, the court looked to the actual receivership order to decide who could authorize corporate bankruptcy filings. It affirmed dismissal after finding that the order had vested that power in the receiver rather than former management.
“Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that a receivership order can divest a company’s management of the authority to initiate voluntary bankruptcy proceedings and that a receivership order can further vest this power exclusively in a receiver.”
Procedural preferences
In Evers v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services, he allowed late objections by a pro se plaintiff after documented electronic filing problems and efforts to resolve them established good cause and excusable neglect.
“The Court finds these technical issues, combined with Scott Evers’s efforts to resolve them, demonstrate both good cause and excusable neglect for failing to timely object to the Report and Recommendation.”
In a property rights suit, the court called for more precise briefing of a jurisdictional challenge after the parties failed to tie their arguments clearly to each claim.
“A complex jurisdictional challenge like this requires far more precision.”
Cautions
In Gordon v. Clinton Police Department, Atchley dismissed a Section 1983 false-arrest claim because the arrest was made under a facially valid warrant. The later dismissal of the theft charge did not itself show the arrest was unlawful.
“An arrest pursuant to a facially valid warrant is a complete defense to a constitutional claim for false arrest or false imprisonment made pursuant to Section 1983.”
In Evers v. Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, Atchley dismissed some pro se claims without prejudice to allow an attempt to cure pleading defects, despite doubts that amendment would succeed.
“these claims are being dismissed without prejudice only because of Plaintiffs’ pro se status and the Sixth Circuit’s preference for allowing pro se litigants the opportunity to attempt to cure defects in their pleadings.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc 11] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against the City of Clinton and Josh Bunch are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 10] is GRANTED and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 49] is DENIED. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Federal Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert or participation with them are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from implementing the Interpretation, Dear Educator Letter, Fact Sheet, and the Technical Assistance Document against Plaintiffs.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 49] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff has failed to show that the Court erred in its October 4, 2024, Memorandum Opinion and Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 36] is DENIED.”
“For reasons that follow, the Motion to Exclude Testimony of Tyler A. Kress, Ph.D. [Case No. 4:16-cv-117, Doc. 309; Case No. 4:16- 118, Doc. 286] and Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Steven Loudon [Case No. 4:16-cv-117, Doc. 311; Case No. 4:16-118, Doc. 288] will be GRANTED IN PART.”
“Because Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence of a specific defect in the subject vehicle that caused their damages, the Motion for Summary Judgment [Case No. 4:16-cv-117, Doc. 316; Case No. 4:16- cv-118, Doc. 293] will be GRANTED and this action DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“As the Court will explain, all of Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. His Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Counsel [Doc. 2] will therefore be DENIED AS MOOT. In addition, Plaintiff cannot meet the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), which requires that ‘the representative party’ be able ‘to protect fairly and adequately the interests of the class.’”
“Defendants have met their burden of showing they would prevail at trial on the exhaustion issue. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. 46] will be GRANTED, and this action will be DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Botezat's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 43], on the other hand, is GRANTED as he has established that Tennessee law does not permit the BZA to review the Planning Commission's approval or denial of a development plan.”
“Accordingly, Downing's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 46] is DENIED.”
“As for Knox County, its Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 49] is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it argues that Downing lacks a statutory right to a BZA appeal and DENIED IN PART to the extent it argues that the Knox County Zoning Ordinance is valid as it currently exists.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's federal habeas petition in part and ORDERS the Government to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing consistent with § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. All other relief requested in the petition is DENIED, as is all other relief sought in Petitioner's reply.”
“Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss [Doc. 53] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 32] and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 46] are both DENIED.”
“Despite the harms an injunction could inflict on Retreat guests and Covenant Life as a whole, the Court concludes that the equities support granting injunctive relief to Norris.”
“Norris's request for summary judgment is GRANTED as to its claims that Covenant Life circumvented a stop-work order through its use of the garden hose and wrongfully failed to obtain the required permit for that use.”
“Accordingly, Unum's denial of Plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits is REVERSED and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the ERISA Record [Doc. 69] is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled early-2021 civil docket spans civil-rights and prisoner cases, immigration petitions, removed municipal-law disputes, personal-injury and Social Security appeals, and habeas petitions. One case produced a ruling adopting a magistrate judge's screening recommendation; others were remanded or resolved without a dispositive order in the sampled window.
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 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 13 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 25 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 19 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 9 |
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 Eastern District of Tennessee, not for Judge Atchley: 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 | 933 | 9.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 139 | 7.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 724 | 9.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 59 | 20.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 11 | 32.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 933 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 845 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 762 | 10.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 921 | 12.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 949 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 803 | 10 months |
| Sep 2019 | 859 | 12.1 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 Atchley with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Atchley, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Atchley's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace