Holly A. Brady
How Judge Brady rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brady
Holly Ann Brady is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Brady received a commission on April 16, 2019.
Judge Brady's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Brady, 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
Motions
Direct non-dispositive criminal motions to the assigned magistrate judge.
“Non-dispositive motions and the related forms of order should be directed to the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case.”
Trial
File proposed jury instructions and verdict forms at least 25 days before trial.
“Any proposed jury instructions (identifying the source and/or supporting authority for each proposed instruction) and any proposed verdict forms must be filed at least 25 days before trial.”
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 Brady decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hamilton's employment-discrimination case, Brady granted the school district's summary judgment motion after finding no genuine dispute that connected the adverse action to a protected characteristic.
“Because FWCS has shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, its motion will be granted.”
In Brownlee's case, Brady dismissed the complaint at screening after finding that the court records showed a timely probable-cause determination and prompt initial hearing; she denied further amendment as futile.
“DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the complaint does not state any viable claims.”
In the reviewed preliminary-injunction ruling, Brady found a reasonable likelihood of success where a statutory amendment appeared to impose a new registration duty after the plaintiff's earlier obligation had expired, and she treated the continuing constitutional injury as irreparable harm.
“For the reasons explained above, the Court: (1) GRANTS the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3); and (2) Finds that no bond shall be required of Lacey under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).”
Procedural preferences
In Strack’s jail conditions suit, Brady found the complaint too vague to screen and allowed an amendment, directing him to identify each defendant’s conduct and separate unrelated claims.
“GRANTS Michael Anthony Strack until November 7, 2024, to file an amended complaint; and (4) CAUTIONS Michael Anthony Strack 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.”
At the pleading stage, Brady declined to resolve a contractual limitations defense when the complaint did not unambiguously establish the relevant dates, and she declined to convert the motion into one for summary judgment where discovery could clarify those facts.
“For the reasons stated above, the Court: (1) DENIES Sun Life’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14); and (2) GRANTS Cebalt leave to file, within fourteen days of the issuance of this order, an amended complaint amending only her bad faith claim.”
Cautions
In Collicott's § 2255 case, Brady denied relief after finding two arguments procedurally defaulted under the plea agreement's appeal waiver and the ineffective-assistance argument meritless.
“Because his first two arguments are procedurally defaulted under the appeal waiver in his plea agreement and his ineffective assistance of counsel argument lacks merit, his 2255 petition will be DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because the Court finds no genuine issue of fact connecting Tucker's termination and her pregnancy, Familia's motion for summary judgment will be granted.”
“Because FWCS has shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, its motion will be granted.”
“Because his first two arguments are procedurally defaulted under the appeal waiver in his plea agreement and his ineffective assistance of counsel argument lacks merit, his 2255 petition will be DENIED.”
Screening order for a self-represented former detainee. The complaint was too vague under Rule 8 and combined unrelated grievances against twenty defendants, but the court allowed amendment and gave detailed instructions for a short, plain, claim-specific pleading. Verbatim disposition: 'GRANTS Michael Anthony Strack until November 7, 2024, to file an amended complaint; and (4) CAUTIONS Michael Anthony Strack 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.'
Screening dismissal of a prisoner's amended complaint challenging a 2020 vehicle seizure and a state judge's dismissal of related litigation. The pleaded dates showed the federal claim was time-barred, and judicial immunity barred the claim against the state judge; further amendment was denied as futile. Verbatim disposition: 'For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it is frivolous.' The order did not state whether dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Screening dismissal of a prisoner's Fourth Amendment claims about the timing of probable-cause and initial-hearing proceedings. Judicially noticed state-court records showed probable cause was found less than twenty-four hours after arrest, and the post-holiday initial hearing was not objectively unreasonable. Further amendment was denied as futile. Verbatim disposition: 'DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the complaint does not state any viable claims.' The order did not state whether dismissal was with or without prejudice.
“Accordingly, Groeneweg’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF 32) is DENIED.”
“The Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED in the amount of $14,959.50.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court: (1) DENIES Sun Life’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14); and (2) GRANTS Cebalt leave to file, within fourteen days of the issuance of this order, an amended complaint amending only her bad faith claim.”
“For the reasons explained above, the Court: (1) GRANTS the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3); and (2) Finds that no bond shall be required of Lacey under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 29) is GRANTED.”
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 | 5 |
| 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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 5 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 5 | 10 |
| Mar 2025 | 5 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 25 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 16 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 7 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 6 |
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 Brady: 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 Brady with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brady, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brady's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace