🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

U. W. Clemon

United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama district Retired 2009 · served 1980–2009 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 22 signed orders read

Judge Clemon no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Clemon decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He treated the Social Security claimant’s burden as demanding but achievable when the record lacked substantial evidence for denial.

“The burden on a disability claimant to establish entitlement to benefits is heavy but not insuperable.”

He found the right to counsel attached when the government’s posture had shifted from investigation to accusation.

“the Government’s role had shifted from investigation to accusation”

He found capital prejudice where counsel failed to investigate and present substantial mitigation evidence.

“Petitioner suffered the ultimate prejudice from his counsel’s failure to investigate and present available and substantial mitigating evidence.”

He required standing allegations to place a claimant within the statute’s protected zone of interests.

“Ms. Frazer simply does not allege facts which demonstrate that she is within the zone of interest of the MSPA.”

Procedural preferences

He treated valid service as a foundational prerequisite to imposing judicial obligations on a defendant.

“Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.”

He applied the limitations period as a complete bar to the legal-malpractice claim.

“The Plaintiffs legal malpractice claim is barred by the statute of limitations.”

He refused substantive deposition rewrites through an errata sheet.

“A deposition is not a take home examination.”

He struck a summary-judgment motion filed after the operative deadlines.

“Because of its untimeliness, the Counter-Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 165, is hereby STRICKEN.”

Cautions

He required a recusal charge to rest on facts rather than unsupported allegations.

“A charge of impartiality must be supported by the facts.”

He certified securities classes only where the record supported the requirements claim by claim.

“the Court finds and concludes that a plaintiff class is due to be certified”

He rejected summary judgment where the undisputed filing date defeated the limitations defense.

“summary judgment on this claim is wholly inappropriate.”

He found a seizure where officers’ positioning and commands communicated that the defendants were not free to leave.

“in the instant case there was a ‘show of authority that communicated to [defendants] that [their] liberty was restrained.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Crown Pontiac, Inc. v. Ballock
· 2003-09-23
Request for injunction bond damages (Ballock) Granted

“By separate order, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to pay over to the Defendant the sum of $6,766.45 as damages from the Injunction Bond, and to pay over the remaining balance to the Plaintiff.”

Dionne v. Simmons (In re Simmons)
· 2000-06-30
Recusal (Court) Granted

“The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to assign this case to another judge.”

Hester v. Barnhart
· 2004-09-30
Social security appeal (Hester) Granted

“For the reasons discussed above, the decision denying benefits will be REVERSED, by separate order.”

United States v. Bowman
· 2003-08-09
Motion to suppress (Bowman defendants) Granted in part

“By separate order, the Bowman Defendants’ Motion to Suppress their statements made to Santana Pensara on August 16, 2002, will be granted. In all other respects, and for reasons stated into the record, the motion will be denied.”

Maynor v. MORGAN COUNTY, ALA.
· 2001-04-17
Preliminary injunction (Inmate class) Granted

“By separate order, the requested Preliminary Injunction will be granted.”

Dumas v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
· 2001-04-05
Motion for attorneys fees (Dumas) Granted

“FINAL JUDGMENT on Plaintiffs application for attorneys’ fees and expenses is hereby ENTERED as follows:”

Prewitt Enterprises, Inc. v. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
· 2004-08-02
Motions to dismiss (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) Granted

“By separate order, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss shall be granted, without prejudice, to the right of Plaintiff to pursue an alternate means of effecting service on Defendant.”

Borden v. Clement
· 2001-03-30
Summary judgment (Clement) Granted

“By separate order, summary judgment will be granted for the Defendant.”

AAL High Yield Bond Fund v. Ruttenberg
· 2005-08-11
Class certification (AAL High Yield Bond Fund and Delaware Delchester Fund) Granted in part

“By separate order, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification will be GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims. Similarly, class certification will be GRANTED with respect to the Section 12(a)(2) claims of a subclass of original purchasers of the JFF Notes. Class certification will be DENIED on the Section 12(a)(1) claims, as well as to the Section 12(a)(2) claims by a subclass of Plaintiffs who purchased the JFF Notes in the secondary market. Certification of a Defendant class will also be DENIED.”

Callahan v. Haley
· 2004-04-01
Habeas petition (Callahan) Granted

“By separate order, the writ of habeas corpus will be granted.”

United States v. Bobo
· 2004-08-30
Motion to recuse (United States) Denied

“the United States Attorney’s recusal motion must be DENIED in its entirety.”

United States v. Mountain Metal Co.
· 2001-04-05
Cercla cost recovery claim (United States against Jowers) Granted

“Jowers is an ‘arranger’ for purposes of CERCLA”

Cercla cost recovery claim (United States against Lion Metals and Madewell) Denied

“Lion Metals and Madewell are not ‘arrangers’ for purposes of CERCLA”

Cercla contribution claim (Exide and Johnson Controls) Denied

“all defendants are entitled to protection from the CERCLA action filed by the private plaintiffs”

Motion for attorneys fees (Defendants) Denied

“attorneys’ fees under the SREA are not appropriate given the present facts.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1462 days (N = 19).

The twenty located assigned cases were all terminated and included employment, voting-rights, Social Security, contract, land, insurance, and other civil-rights matters. One case predated Judge Clemon’s commission and was excluded from duration calculations.

A historical record

Judge Clemon no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.