Cristal C. Brisco
How Judge Brisco rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brisco
Cristal C. Brisco is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Brisco received a commission on January 26, 2024.
Judge Brisco's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Brisco, 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
Filing
File motions and exhibits before their supporting briefs so citations use docket numbers.
“Motions and exhibits must be filed before supporting briefs so that the brief’s citations refer to the motions’ and exhibits’ docket numbers.”
Motions
Meet and confer about a motion before filing and say in the motion whether it is opposed.
“Before filing any motion, the movant must meet and confer with the non-movant on the substance of the motion and determine whether the motion is opposed.”
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 Brisco decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an employment summary judgment, the court required evidence that a proposed comparator received better treatment under sufficiently similar working conditions; sharing a job title alone did not establish that comparison.
“Ms. Boyd has also failed to present evidence showing that a similarly situated employee was”
In Western Reserve, Brisco enforced a policy’s prior-publication exclusion after identifying trademark use before the policy period, despite a later use cited by the defendants.
“the ‘first publication’ of the Trademarks occurred before the policy period began on February 10, 2023, and thus falls within the Policy’s prior publication exclusion.”
Procedural preferences
In Viverette v. Porter County, Brisco found the prisoner's complaint failed to state a claim because it sued a nonsuable jail and did not allege a policy or custom of the medical contractor. She gave him until January 15, 2025, to amend and warned that a failure to respond would lead to dismissal under § 1915A.
“if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted”
When denying relief from a judgment after a missed briefing deadline, the court focused on whether counsel explained continuing difficulties through a timely, supported extension request.
“Counsel did not provide any details to substantiate the request for”
Cautions
In Johnson v. Stone, Brisco dismissed a prisoner’s complaint without prejudice at § 1915A screening because it showed on its face that he filed suit before exhausting administrative remedies. She found that amending the complaint could not cure the lack of pre-suit exhaustion.
“It is legally frivolous to file a case that must be dismissed. For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
28 U.S.C. 1915A merits screening dismissal of a pro-se prisoner 1983 complaint, WITHOUT PREJUDICE; leave to amend DENIED as futile. Quote: 'It is legally frivolous to file a case that must be dismissed. For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1).' Ground: PLRA exhaustion (1997e(a)): prisoner sued before exhausting the IDOC grievance process; 'no futility exception' (Massey; Dole); 'sue first, exhaust later approach is not acceptable' (Chambers v. Sood); plaintiff 'pleaded himself out of court' (Early v. Bankers Life), so dismissal at screening is proper where the affirmative defense is established 'so plainly as to make the suit frivolous' (Schillinger). Leave denied as futile (Hukic) because amendment cannot cure a pre-suit exhaustion bar. The dismissal was without prejudice; leave to amend was denied.
28 U.S.C. 1915A merits screening order: current pro-se prisoner complaint does not state a claim, but GRANTS leave to amend (deadline 2025-01-15) with a dismissal caution. Quote: 'The Court [grants] Roy Viverette until 1/15/2025, to file an amended complaint and CAUTIONS Roy Viverette that, if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.' Case DISMISSED 2025-01-22 (entry 9) when no amendment was filed. Contrasts with Johnson: leave-to-amend offered for a curable failure-to-state-a-claim (Luevano default), not denied. Prejudice does not apply; leave to amend was granted.
Administrative dismissal without prejudice of a pro se prisoner's Section 1983 case for failure to pay the partial filing fee and failure to prosecute. Quote: 'This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Cristal C Brisco on 5/17/24.' This procedural disposition did not decide a party motion.
“Defendant Flexaust Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 23] is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on all claims.”
“the Court DENIES the motion to vacate the judgment.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for a hearing (ECF 82) and motion to supplement the record (ECF 86) are DENIED as MOOT.”
“(ECF 86) are DENIED as MOOT.”
“DHS’s motion to dismiss (ECF 10) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Western Reserve’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF 37).”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants Prosecutor Baker, Prosecutor Poulos, and Judge Hasnerl’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 23), as well as Defendants Angela Jesuit and Taylor Lockridge’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 25). Courts will generally allow amendment of the complaint after dismissal, but will not do so when amendment would be futile or frivolous. Villars v. Kubiatowski, 128 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1043 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (citing Moore v. Ind., 999 F.2d 1125, 1128 (7th Cir. 1993)). Here, no conceivable amendment could cure the standing and immunity barriers to Plaintiffs’ claims. See Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED, with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts. (ECF 253). Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED.”
“the Court GRANTS ACM’s motion for leave to file surreply, (ECF 37),”
“DENIES NMBS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF 28).”
“For these reasons, Officer Marthakis’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 18) and motion for sanctions (ECF 28) are DENIED.”
“and motion for sanctions (ECF 28) are DENIED.”
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 | 11 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 15 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 35 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 24 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 8 |
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 Northern District of Indiana, not for Judge Brisco: 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 | 1,338 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 68 | 2.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 958 | 7.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 302 | 14.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 43.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,338 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,336 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,248 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,434 | 12.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,258 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,408 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,576 | 13.8 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 Brisco with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brisco, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brisco's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace