James Patrick Hanlon
How Judge Hanlon rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hanlon
James Patrick Hanlon is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Hanlon received a commission on November 5, 2018.
Judge Hanlon's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hanlon, 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 supporting briefs so brief citations identify their docket numbers.
“Motions and exhibits must be filed before supporting briefs so that the brief”
Motions
Before moving for summary judgment, contact other parties about any planned cross-motion.
“Counsel planning to move for summary judgment must contact counsel”
Motions
Deposition citations must give page and line numbers, with the cited pages and at least three pages before and after included as an exhibit.
“Deposition cites must include specific page and line numbers. The cited pages—and at least the three pages immediately preceding and following—must be included as an exhibit”
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).
- General Order Re: Procedures for Sealed Filings ↗
- General Order Re: Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Order Regarding Prisoner Electronic Filing Program ↗
- General Order/Administrative Policy 2024-35 - Electronic Submissions to the Court by Pro Se Litigants ↗
- General Order Re: Presentation of Contaminated Materials for Filing ↗
How Judge Hanlon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At final settlement approval, evidence developed through discovery showing a substantial risk of no recovery, combined with the absence of opt-outs or objections, supported approval of the class settlement.
“Similarly, the parties discussed at the fairness hearing that discovery revealed a substantial risk that the class would receive no recovery if they had not reached the Agreement at this stage of the case. There are also no opt-outs and no objectors to the class settlement.”
Procedural preferences
Dismissal with prejudice followed repeated failures to update an address, answer discovery, respond to a show-cause order, or oppose dismissal after explicit warnings, where the delay prejudiced defendants and another opportunity appeared unlikely to produce compliance.
“Mr. Middleton's actions in this case indicate that he is not likely to respond if given yet another opportunity. ‘A district judge need not wait forever. Eventually a plaintiff's failure to cooperate in the prosecution of its own suit leads to dismissal.’”
Cautions
A failure-to-warn theory must identify a latent danger; an obvious and inherent product danger does not create a warning duty under the objective consumer test applied in the order.
“But a TASER weapon's capabilities are an obvious and inherent danger of the weapon, rather than a ‘latent dangerous characteristic’ that triggers a duty to warn.”
Municipal-liability allegations must connect the claimed injury to the municipality's own policy or custom; allegations about individual employees do not supply that link.
“Because, under Monell, ‘a plaintiff must challenge conduct that is properly attributable to the municipality itself,’ her allegations about individual officers' actions do not state a claim.”
A defendant moving for summary judgment on prison grievance exhaustion must establish that the process was available to the plaintiff; unresolved availability facts defeated the defense motion in this order.
“They have not met their burden, so Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the exhaustion defense.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“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.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss, dkt. [16], is GRANTED, and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. ... the United States is immune from liability.”
“Mr. Willsey's motion for summary judgment is denied because his claim has been dismissed. Dkt. [19].”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss, dkt. [8], is DENIED. ... This is a straightforward case with straightforward claims.”
“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].”
“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].”
“their motion to stay pending a ruling on their motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot, dkt. [50].”
“Accordingly, the respondent's motion to dismiss, dkt. [13], is granted, and the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Dkt. [75]. Final judgment will issue by separate entry.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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].”
“Mr. Albrecht's habeas petition is DENIED. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE.”
“Mr. Osburn's motion for summary judgment, dkt. [66], is granted. All claims against Mr. Osburn are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Mr. Cislo's motion to dismiss all claims against defendant Wexford, dkt.[84], is granted. All claims against Wexford are dismissed with prejudice.”
“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...”
“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].”
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 | 16 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 23 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 16 | 23 |
| Sep 2025 | 26 | 16 |
| Mar 2025 | 11 | 15 |
| Sep 2024 | 9 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 11 | 12 |
| Sep 2023 | 11 | 13 |
| Mar 2023 | 13 | 15 |
| Sep 2022 | 10 | 13 |
| Mar 2022 | 22 | 13 |
| Sep 2021 | 13 | 14 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 18 |
| Sep 2020 | 6 | 12 |
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 Southern District of Indiana, not for Judge Hanlon: 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 | 2,443 | 11.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 70 | 2.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,083 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,283 | 26.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 7 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,443 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,243 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,050 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,896 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,988 | 11.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,419 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,168 | 8.2 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 Hanlon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hanlon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hanlon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace