Rossie David Alston, Jr.
How Judge Jr. decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Sitting by designation on the Fourth Circuit, he reviews class-settlement and discovery rulings for abuse of discretion and declines to announce broader standards than the appeal requires -- a narrow, record-bound appellate posture.
“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
Enforces the E.D. Va. summary-judgment local rule strictly: where the party opposing summary judgment fails to identify the specific facts in dispute and the record evidence supporting the dispute, he deems the movant's statement of undisputed facts admitted -- even for a pro se litigant. Counsel (and pro se parties) must answer the movant's numbered facts with specific record citations.
“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. JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Jennings, 473 F. Supp. 2d 705, 707 (E.D. Va. 2007) (deeming movant’s statement of undisputed facts admitted ...) (citing E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 56(B)).”
Decides fully-briefed dispositive motions on the papers without oral argument when argument would not aid the decision, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) and Local Civil Rule 7(J). Do not assume a hearing on an APA/record-review summary-judgment motion.
“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).”
On pro se prisoner complaints he generally dismisses without prejudice with leave to amend on the court's standardized Section 1983 form, rather than dismissing with prejudice -- giving the litigant a defined window and a template to cure pleading defects.
“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.”
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss he takes the well-pleaded allegations as true and tests plausibility -- a plausibly-pleaded Title IX peer-harassment 'deliberate indifference' theory survives in part against a school board and most individual defendants (granted-in-part), and is not dismissed wholesale; once an amended complaint is operative, motions aimed at the original complaint are denied as moot.
“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.”
Will permit a sensitive plaintiff (here a minor Title IX sexual-harassment victim) to proceed under a pseudonym IN PART, directing the clerk to substitute initials for party names rather than denying anonymity outright.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Pseudonym Motion (Dkt. 38) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Cautions
Liberally construes pro se pleadings but will not build the litigant's legal arguments or 'divine' the claim -- a pro se party still bears the burden of marshalling record evidence and articulating the theory.
“While the courts liberally construe pro se pleadings as a matter of course, judges are not also required to construct a party’s legal arguments for him or “divine” what the plaintiff is trying to achieve or say.”
STRONG SELECTION-ARTIFACT CAUTION: this record is a THIN first slice (5 counted motions) and the posture mix (defendant SJ grants; denials of pro se TRO/reconsideration motions) is NOT a merits tendency. The usual published-opinion sources (GovInfo USCOURTS, docket records case law) hold NO Alston opinions, and docket entry coverage for his dockets is very thin (most terminated dockets return zero entries). The only rulings recoverable are therefore the fraction of dockets where docket happens to hold an uploaded order/opinion -- overwhelmingly defense summary-judgment wins and pro se screening/procedural dispositions. Plaintiff wins and grants of plaintiff motions exist on the full docket but are the unposted/text-only entries docket is missing. Do NOT read the counts as a grant rate.
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 4 |
Granted in part: 3Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 3 |
Granted: 2Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to proceed pseudonym N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Preliminary injunction N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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.”
Sua sponte dismissal of the pro se prisoner 1983 action without prejudice after screening; IFP and ancillary motions dismissed as moot. Non-motion screening disposition -- counts as an order read, not toward motion stats. Grounded in the verbatim docket-entry order text (entry 26).
“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.”
Pro se prisoner 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint dismissed without prejudice on screening, with leave to amend on a standardized Section 1983 form within 30 days. Illustrates his standard pro se screening practice (dismiss-with-leave on a court form rather than dismiss-with-prejudice). Non-motion screening disposition -- excluded from motion stats. Grounded in the verbatim docket-entry order text (entry 10; opinion document 421140537, 11 pp).
Pro se prisoner civil-rights action: the plaintiff's premature motion for summary judgment was denied and the action dismissed without prejudice on screening. Treated as a screening disposition (the MSJ denial is procedural -- the complaint never cleared 1915 review -- not a merits SJ ruling), so excluded from motion stats to avoid distorting the SJ counts. Grounded in the verbatim docket-entry order text (entry 6; opinion document 428096625, 6 pp).
“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.”
“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.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 126 days (N = 18).
assigned_judge canonical string = 'Rossie David Alston Jr.' (no comma). Confirm the signer on each order: assigned_judge is the currently-assigned judge, which can differ from the signer after reassignment -- 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.