Clifton L. Corker
How Judge Corker rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Corker
Clifton Leland Corker is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Corker received a commission on July 22, 2019.
Judge Corker's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Corker, 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.
Key rules
Motions
Summary judgment motions must be accompanied by a separate, concise statement of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue for trial.
“Summary judgment motions must be accompanied by a separate, concise statement of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue for trial.”
Motions
Set out each asserted undisputed fact in a separate numbered paragraph with no more than two record citations.
“Each fact shall be set forth in a separate, numbered paragraph, and supported by no more than two citations to the record.”
Discovery
Discovery disputes are generally handled by conference call with the assigned magistrate judge with all attorneys present on the call.
“Discovery disputes are generally handled by conference call with the assigned magistrate judge with all attorneys present on the call.”
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 Corker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an equal-protection challenge to a racial classification, the judge required the government to show the classification was narrowly tailored to a compelling interest with case-specific evidence, not national-level statistics about how small a share of contracting dollars was affected.
“Defendants' assertion that the rebuttable presumption presents only a slight burden because a minor amount of all national federal contracting dollars is eligible for small businesses offers cold comfort.”
On summary judgment, the judge treated comparative fault as presumptively a jury question, declining to resolve it as a matter of law even where the plaintiff had arguably violated traffic statutes, because the parties' relative conduct remained disputed.
“Allocating more than 50 percent of fault now would require the Court to resolve all factual disputes. But at this stage, that is not the province of the Court.”
In United States v. Peterson, Corker denied an as-applied challenge to a felon-in-possession charge. He found that the defendant’s aggravated-assault offense from 2005 left him with a heavy burden to show he was no longer dangerous, considered the time he spent in prison and a later firearm conviction, and found no evidence of rehabilitation.
“He has produced no evidence nor suggested the existence of evidence showing that he has been rehabilitated and is no longer a danger to the community since either his violent offense in 2005 or his recent firearm conviction in 2020.”
Procedural preferences
Even on an unopposed summary-judgment motion, the judge confirmed the moving party had actually carried its evidentiary burden rather than granting the motion by default for lack of a response.
“A district court cannot grant summary judgment because the adverse party did not respond but instead must, at a minimum, ensure the movant has met its burden.”
In Cutshall v. Little, Corker dismissed the plaintiff’s case with prejudice after he failed to answer discovery, obey the court’s order, or update his address despite warnings.
“As to the first factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to or comply with the Court’s previous order is due to Plaintiff’s willfulness and/or fault.”
In an insurance dispute, the court remanded because the alleged fraudulent joinder depended on contested facts about an agent’s representations and the discovery rule, issues beyond the narrow inquiry permitted at that stage.
“Both issues depend on factual determinations that exceed the narrow inquiry permitted at this stage.”
Cautions
In Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 102 v. Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC, he denied a temporary restraining order because the union offered no proof of an actual or planned retaliatory discharge and had not shown irreparable harm.
“Local 102 has not put on any proof that CNS has discharged any employees or plans to discharge any employees in retaliation for having to reinstate the three employees because of the arbitrator's award.”
In one timeshare purchaser class action, the court required proof of a common question tied to each claim and capable of a common answer. It denied renewed certification when the plaintiffs relied on a broad assertion that the conspiracy claim was common by its nature.
“Plaintiffs fail to do any of these things for their civil-conspiracy claim, relying instead on their contention that this claim satisfies commonality ‘by its nature.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Ultima's Motion for Summary Judgment [60] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIES IN PART, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [61] is DENIED. The Court DECLARES that Defendants' use of the rebuttable presumption violates Ultima's Fifth Amendment right to equal protection of the law.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [61] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment on comparative fault [Doc. 90] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment on punitive damages, however, [Doc. 94] is GRANTED.”
“this Defendant's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 36] will be GRANTED, and this action will be DISMISSED.”
“Defendant Anderson County's motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery [Doc. 33] will be DENIED as moot.”
“Defendants’ motions [Doc. 35 and 36] will be GRANTED, ... and this action will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count 4 of the Superseding Indictment [Doc. 111] is DENIED.”
“Defendants Cash and Pittman's motion for sanctions [Doc. 53] is GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and comply with discovery and this Court's orders.”
“Defendant Adams' motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions [Doc. 59] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the reasons as set forth above, Plaintiff's motion provides no basis for Rule 60(b) relief, and the instant motion [Doc. 9] is DENIED.”
“the Court finds Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. 56] should be granted and this action dismissed.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner's motion [Doc. 1] is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's motion to suppress [Doc. 53] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion to suppress [Doc. 53] and motion to dismiss [Doc. 55] are DENIED.”
“Mr. Allen's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [Doc. 1] is DENIED; and ... This case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 25] is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled civil docket spans Section 1983 civil-rights suits, fair-housing and employment-discrimination claims, prisoner habeas and Section 2255 petitions, personal-injury and products-liability claims, and a labor-arbitration dispute.
- The six cases sampled to a dispositive ruling produced four summary-judgment or motion-to-dismiss grants for the defense, one partial grant on improper venue, and one denied temporary restraining order; one grant was later reversed on appeal and remanded, so that case's merits remain unresolved.
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 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 0 |
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 Corker: 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 Corker with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Corker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Corker's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace