Rossie David Alston, Jr.
How Judge Alston rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Alston
Rossie David Alston, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Alston received a commission on June 12, 2019.
Judge Alston's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Alston's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Alston decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Barchiesi v. Charlotte School of Law, LLC, sitting by designation on the Fourth Circuit, he limited the panel's discovery holding to whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion at issue.
“Today, we do not decide whether a more stringent standard must be applied to settlement-related discovery motions. We only decide whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the discovery motion at issue.”
Procedural preferences
In Oualia v. Esochaghi, Alston found that the self-represented plaintiff had not identified the facts he disputed or cited record evidence as Local Rule 56(B) required. He treated the defendant's statement of material facts as undisputed while considering some documents the plaintiff submitted.
“Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules because he failed to identify the specific facts he was disputing and the record evidence upon which he relied to support his dispute.”
In Capital Hospice v. Becerra, he dispensed with oral argument on the motions because it would not aid the decision, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) and Local Civil Rule 7(J).
“The Court has dispensed with oral argument as it would not aid in the decisional process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Civil Rule 7(J).”
In Wood v. Clarke, Alston dismissed a pro se prisoner’s complaint without prejudice and gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint on the court’s standardized Section 1983 form.
“ORDERED that the complaint be and is HEREBY DISMISSED without prejudice, to allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in compliance with the requirements of this order; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff particularize and amend his Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order using the enclosed standardized §1983 complaint form.”
In B.R. v. Fairfax County School Board, Alston assumed the amended complaint’s factual allegations were true for Rule 12(b)(6) review. He granted several dismissal motions in part while allowing portions of the Title IX peer-harassment claims to proceed.
“For purposes of considering the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court assumes all facts in the Amended Complaint to be true.”
In B.R. v. F.C.S.B., Alston granted in part and denied in part the minor plaintiff’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym in a Title IX case.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Pseudonym Motion (Dkt. 38)is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
In Morales Banegas v. Blanche, he held that the petitioner, who had entered the United States around 2014, was subject to the discretionary detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
“subject to the discretionary detention provisions in § 1226(a).”
Cautions
In Oualia v. Esochaghi, he said that although courts construe self-represented pleadings liberally, judges need not construct a party's legal arguments for him.
“legal arguments for him” or ‘divine’ what the plaintiff is trying to achieve or say.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant F.C.S.B.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. 53) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Individual School Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. 56) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant J.O.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. 66) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant C.K.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. 59) is DENIED;”
“it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant F.C.S.B.'s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 42) is DENIED;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Pseudonym Motion (Dkt. 38) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED”
“ORDERED that ‘Ex Parte For Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction’ and motion to seal [Dkt. No. 2] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr on 6/13/2022.”
Alston dismissed a pro se prisoner Section 1983 action without prejudice sua sponte after screening and denied the in forma pauperis and ancillary motions as moot. The disposition is grounded in the verbatim docket-entry order text.
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion [Dkt. No. 27] is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk treat the Motion, Dkt. No. 27, as a timely filed NOTICE OF APPEAL. Signed by District Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr on 2/8/2023.”
“Defendant Dr. Esochaghi (‘Defendant’) was served, filed an answer, and filed a motion for summary judgment on December 1, 2023. ... For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.”
Alston dismissed a pro se prisoner's Section 1983 complaint without prejudice on sua sponte screening, with leave to amend on a standardized Section 1983 form within 30 days. The order illustrates his practice of allowing amendment on the court form rather than dismissing with prejudice and is grounded in the verbatim docket-entry text.
In a pro se prisoner civil-rights action, Alston denied the plaintiff's premature summary-judgment motion and dismissed the action without prejudice on screening. The denial was procedural because the complaint never cleared Section 1915 review, not a merits summary-judgment ruling. The disposition is grounded in the verbatim docket-entry order text.
“it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED for the reasons that follow.”
“For all of the reasons above, the Petition (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner be provided with a bond hearing by an Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of this order;”
“For all of the reasons above, the Petition (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner be provided with a bond hearing by an Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of this order;”
“For all of the reasons above, the Petition (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner be provided with a bond hearing by an Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of this Order;”
“FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 2) is DENIED as MOOT in light of this Order and the Court’s prior Order (Dkt. 3).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 126 days (N = 18).
Because cases can be reassigned, the signer is confirmed on each order rather than assumed from the currently-assigned judge: e.g. Jenkins v. NVR (1:21-cv-01381) shows an Opinion and Order granting transfer signed by Judge Robert G. Doumar before the case reached Alston.
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 | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 8 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, not for Judge Alston: 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 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,204 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,299 | 4.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 493 | 8.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 15 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,613 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,194 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,134 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,152 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,860 | 6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,267 | 5.9 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 Alston with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Alston, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Alston's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace