James Tyne Moody
How Judge Moody rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Moody
James Tyne Moody is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Moody received a commission on February 9, 1982. Judge Moody assumed senior status on June 17, 2003.
Judge Moody's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Moody, 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
Trial
Mark and number or letter all exhibits before trial and furnish copies and an exhibit list to opposing counsel and the court.
“All exhibits are to be marked and numbered (or lettered) before trial and copies are to be furnished to opposing counsel and the Court with an exhibit list.”
Trial
Raise trial disputes during a break rather than by sidebar when possible.
“Side bars during trial are strongly discouraged. Matters in dispute should be taken up with the Court on a break so that time is not taken away from the jury.”
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 Moody decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rivas v. Martin, he denied a motion to dismiss a due process claim over the plaintiff's alleged detention beyond an ICE detainer period.
“For the foregoing reasons, defendants motion to dismiss (DE # 16) is DENIED.”
In Powers-Ivey v. Harris, he allowed the prisoner's retaliation claim against Officer Harris to proceed at screening.
“GRANTS Tyrone Powers-Ivey leave to proceed against Officer R. Harris in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for retaliating against him”
On the reviewed exhaustion motion, Moody denied summary judgment where prison staff improperly rejected a grievance that the undisputed evidence showed had been submitted within the policy deadline, making the administrative remedy unavailable.
“The state defendants’ motion for summary judgment (DE # 64) is therefore DENIED.”
Where a prisoner's grievance copies and attestation conflicted with the institution's missing records, Moody denied summary judgment and sent the submission dispute to an evidentiary hearing rather than resolving credibility on the papers.
“GRANTS the request for an evidentiary hearing (DE # 74)”
In the reviewed arbitration dispute, Moody treated incorporation of AAA rules as evidence that the parties delegated arbitrability to the arbitrator; he directed the parties to seek relief appropriate to the agreed New York forum.
“incorporation of the AAA rules into a parties’ arbitration agreement constitutes ‘clear and unmistakable evidence’ that the parties intend the arbitrator to decide questions of arbitrability.”
Cautions
In Graber v. Mad Brewer, he found that the cited workplace comments were not linked to gender discrimination in that plaintiff's Title VII claim.
“there is nothing that links these comments to gender discrimination.”
In Piltch v. Ford, a crashworthiness case, he granted Ford's summary judgment motion and denied its alternative sanctions request as moot.
“Ford's motion for summary judgment (DE # 20) is GRANTED; its alternative motion for sanctions is denied as moot.”
In the reviewed employment summary-judgment ruling, Moody required evidence that the employer's stated reason was a lie rather than merely mistaken, harsh, or unfair; unsupported comparator evidence, coworker remarks not tied to the decision, and temporal sequence alone did not establish discrimination or retaliation.
“Whether USS’s decision to fire plaintiff was illogical, harsh, or unfair is not the question; the question is whether the decision was based on race.”
In the reviewed prisoner medical-care case, he required medical evidence tying a delayed specialist visit to additional harm before allowing the deliberate-indifference claim to reach a jury.
“because Ziebell has presented no verifying medical evidence, no reasonable jury could find that a delay between his injury and his specialist visit caused him harm beyond that caused by the AC separation itself.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons explained below, the court grants the motion for summary judgment.”
“For the reasons explained below, the motion will be granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendants motion to dismiss (DE # 16) is DENIED.”
“State Farm's motion for summary judgment (DE # 14) is GRANTED. ... The clerk is directed to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of State Farm Fire & Casualty Company.”
“defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company's motion to strike (DE # 24) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs third motion to amend (DE # 34) is GRANTED. However, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company is DISMISSED from the complaint.”
“defendants' motion to dismiss (DE # 6) will be denied.”
“Ford's motion for summary judgment (DE # 20) is GRANTED; its alternative motion for sanctions is denied as moot.”
“Defendants Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (DE # 27) and Safeguard Properties, LLC (DE # 18) have both moved to dismiss Counts A, B, D, E, and F of plaintiffs Gerald Gordon and Tahara Brown's complaint. For the following reasons, those motions are granted in part and denied in part.”
“those motions are granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendant Cintas Corporate Services #2 d/b/a Cintas Corporation (‘Cintas’) has moved for summary judgment on Counts I, II, and III of plaintiffs' complaint. (DE # 105.) For the following reasons, that motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“This matter is before the court on defendants' motion for summary judgment. (DE # 38.) For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“the motion to amend the complaint will be DENIED and the motion to modify the deposition deadline will be GRANTED.”
“Defendant Park Center, Inc. (‘Park Center’) has moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims. ... For the reasons explained below, the motion will be granted.”
“the court GRANTS defendants' motion for summary judgment (DE # 23) as to all of plaintiffs claims except his claim against defendant Huley for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 14 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 15 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 22 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 15 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 7 |
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 Moody: 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 Moody with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Moody, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Moody's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace