Thomas L. Parker
How Judge Parker rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Parker
Thomas Lee Robinson Parker is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Parker received a commission on January 30, 2018.
Judge Parker's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Parker, 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
Conferences
Out-of-town counsel seeking to attend a Parker scheduling conference by phone must request permission in writing at least five days beforehand.
“The request to participate by phone must be in writing at least five (5) days prior to the conference and include the names and telephone numbers of all parties participating via phone.”
Conferences
File a discovery-plan report and email a proposed scheduling order at least seven days before the first scheduling conference.
“The parties shall file with the Court a written report outlining the proposed discovery plan, and email a proposed scheduling order using the format of Exhibit ‘A’, attached to these Instructions, to [email protected] at least seven (7) days before the first scheduling conference.”
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 Parker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Austin v. Mobifyi, Parker applied the rule against non-lawyers representing others when the company’s registered agent attempted to file on its behalf.
“28 U.S.C. § 1654 ‘generally prohibits non-lawyers from representing other persons other than themselves in federal court.’”
Procedural preferences
On an untimely, unpaid bankruptcy appeal, the judge gave the pro se appellants multiple chances, a show-cause order and a second rescheduled hearing, before dismissing, rather than dismissing at the first default.
“Despite having notice of the new hearing date, he failed to appear.”
Cautions
In Hernandez-Hernandez, the judge denied a motion to alter a mootness judgment because a bond hearing had occurred and a later challenge to its merits remained available; personal equities alone did not show manifest injustice.
“Although the Court sympathizes with Petitioner, sympathy alone does not rise to a ‘fundamental flaw.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Thus, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
“The Court therefore ADOPTS IN PART Judge Christoff's R&R and DENIES MSCS's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”
“The Court thus GRANTS Appellee's motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this appeal WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and REMANDS this case to the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Tennessee for the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District.”
“The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. This matter is remanded to the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee.”
“The Court GRANTS Respondent's motion to dismiss and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner's § 2241 petition.”
“The Court therefore DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment but GRANTS the motion to compel appraisal and stay the case.”
“the Court GRANTS Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, and DENIES the § 2241 Petition.”
“For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on TX Direct's breach of contract claim”
“the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' breach of contract counterclaim.”
“the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 39), DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33), and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37).”
“the Court GRANTS the Government's motion for summary judgment. The Court will enter judgment for the Government.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 363.5 days (N = 14).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 147.5 days (N = 4).
- The bounded 2021 filing sample includes employment and civil-rights claims, insurance and benefits disputes, medical malpractice, and prisoner civil-rights matters.
- Thirteen selected cases have recorded termination dates; Lanier lacks one despite later appeal activity.
- Earlier White, a wage claim resolved after an arbitration stay, is included separately.
- This selection does not represent the full assigned caseload.
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 | 1 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 4 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Western District of Tennessee, not for Judge Parker: 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 | 893 | 8.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 381 | 8.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 489 | 8.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 25.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 13 | 26.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 893 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 737 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 755 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 782 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 792 | 10 months |
| Sep 2020 | 766 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 780 | 9.7 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 Parker with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Parker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Parker's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace