James Patrick Hanlon

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Appointed by Donald Trump (Republican) 19 signed orders read

Signed rulings

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

Burnett v. Byrd
2:22-cv-00280-JPH-MG · 2025-03-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IDOC Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Dkt. [104]. The clerk is directed to terminate defendants Butler, Foster, James, Skinner, Ivy, and Watts from the docket.”

Willsey v. United States of America
1:23-cv-00370-JPH-CSW · 2024-03-08
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motion to dismiss, dkt. [16], is GRANTED, and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. ... the United States is immune from liability.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Mr. Willsey's motion for summary judgment is denied because his claim has been dismissed. Dkt. [19].”

Mid Central Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC
2:24-cv-00326-JPH-MJD · 2024-08-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's motion to dismiss, dkt. [8], is DENIED. ... This is a straightforward case with straightforward claims.”

Wilson v. TransUnion, LLC
1:23-cv-00131-JPH-MJD · 2024-02-02
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“TransUnion does, however, argue in its motion to dismiss that Ms. Wilson's Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently allege a willful violation of the FCRA. For the reasons below, the motion is DENIED. Dkt. [22].”

Merchants Bank of Indiana v. Cypresswood TX Realty, LLC
1:24-cv-00177-JPH-MG · 2024-10-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is therefore DENIED, dkt. [29], and their motion to stay pending a ruling on their motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot, dkt. [50].”

Motions to stay (defendant) Moot / procedural

“their motion to stay pending a ruling on their motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot, dkt. [50].”

Hughes v. Vanihel
2:24-cv-00485-JPH-MG · 2025-06-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, the respondent's motion to dismiss, dkt. [13], is granted, and the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”

James v. National Board of Osteopathic Examiners Inc.
1:23-cv-01607-JPH-TAB · 2026-03-19
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Dkt. [75]. Final judgment will issue by separate entry.”

Marshall v. GEO Group Inc.
1:21-cv-02862-JPH-CSW · 2024-09-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The IDOC Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. [66], is GRANTED, and the GEO Group Defendants' motion, dkt. [73], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the GEO Group Defendants' motion, dkt. [73], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ... This matter shall proceed on Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims against Defendants Carter, Christian, and Sevier in their individual capacities and The GEO Group under the theory set forth in Monell.”

Albrecht v. Warden
2:22-cv-00344-JPH-MKK · 2024-03-28
Motions to compel (petitioner) Denied

“Mr. Albrecht therefore has not shown a basis to compel the respondent to produce evidence from outside the state court record, so the motion to compel is DENIED. Dkt. [11].”

Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Mr. Albrecht's habeas petition is DENIED. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE.”

Cislo v. Wexford of Indiana, LLC
1:18-cv-03265-JPH-DML · 2020-11-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Mr. Osburn's motion for summary judgment, dkt. [66], is granted. All claims against Mr. Osburn are dismissed with prejudice.”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted

“Mr. Cislo's motion to dismiss all claims against defendant Wexford, dkt.[84], is granted. All claims against Wexford are dismissed with prejudice.”

Killion v. Patel
1:24-cv-00337-JPH-MJD · 2025-07-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The Court has considered and now ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. [182]. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. [158]. The following defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice...”

McAfee v. DraftKings, Inc.
1:24-cv-01168-JPH-MJD · 2025-02-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“DraftKings's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Mr. McAfee's DCSA claims and DENIED as to his breach of contract claim. Dkt. [30].”

Put Judge Hanlon's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Hanlon actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Hanlon's own signed orders and cites them.