James Russell Sweeney II
How Judge Sweeney rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sweeney
James Russell Sweeney, II is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Sweeney received a commission on September 13, 2018.
Judge Sweeney's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Sweeney, 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 a motion and its exhibits before the supporting brief so the brief can cite their docket numbers.
“Motions and exhibits must be filed before supporting briefs so that the brief's citations refer back to the motion's and exhibits' docket numbers”
Motions
File extension motions at least three full business days before the deadline.
“counsel must file motions for extension of time at least three full business days”
Motions
Before moving for summary judgment, contact the other parties to see whether they plan a cross-motion.
“Counsel planning to move for summary judgment must contact counsel for the other parties”
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 Sweeney decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Leon’s employment discrimination suit, Sweeney granted the employer’s cross motion for summary judgment after finding no evidence of age discrimination or pretext.
“IUHP's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 138), is granted on all claims. The case is over, and final judgment shall issue accordingly.”
In Jane Does 1-4 v. Butler University, Sweeney denied Butler's motion to dismiss Howell's crossclaim; he held that the crossclaim need not plead the law and that its statutory label did not warrant dismissal.
“Butler's Motion to Dismiss Howell's Crossclaim, (ECF No. 74), is denied.”
In a prisoner retaliation case, the court allowed a claim to proceed where testimony about denied cleaning supplies directly supported the alleged retaliatory motive.
“This is direct evidence that, if believed by a jury, Officer Stevenson acted with retaliatory animus. He therefore is not entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Walker's retaliation claim.”
Procedural preferences
In Nalabotu v. Omnia Investment Advisors, Sweeney read the nonexclusive forum clause as permissive, declined to transfer the suit, and dismissed it for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.
“Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 38, 40, 49), are granted. ... This case is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3).”
Where immigration detention was governed by Section 1226(a) but no required bond hearing had occurred, the court tailored habeas relief to require a hearing within ten days or release under reasonable supervision conditions.
“The Court grants the petition to the extent that within ten days Respondents must either: (1) provide Mr. Diaz Herrera with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its regulations; or (2) release Mr. Diaz Herrera from custody, under reasonable conditions of supervision.”
In a post-verdict fee dispute, Sweeney reduced the calculated fee amount by half after considering limited success at trial and awarded $317,791.25.
“Using its discretion the Court reduced the lodestar amount by 50%. Therefore, the total recoverable amount of attorney's fees pursuant to § 1988 are: $317,791.25.”
In a hemp-products challenge to a state legal opinion, the court revisited standing at summary judgment and dismissed the action without prejudice once it found no federal jurisdiction.
“As it stands, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have standing to advance their claims against the Attorney General. Consequently, it is the Court's conclusion that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the instant matter and, accordingly, this action must be dismissed without prejudice.”
Cautions
In Johnson’s civil rights suit, Sweeney granted the deputy’s summary judgment motion after finding no constitutional violation; he therefore did not decide the qualified immunity defense.
“defendant's motion for summary judgment, dkt. [48], is granted. Final judgment consistent with this Order shall now issue.”
In an insurance pleading dispute, the court required facts suggesting conscious wrongdoing beyond a disagreement over the claim amount before allowing a bad-faith claim to proceed.
“A good faith dispute as to amount of the claim at issue cannot support a bad faith claim”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Butler's Motion to Dismiss Howell's Crossclaim, (ECF No. 74), is denied.”
“Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 38, 40, 49), are granted. ... This case is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3).”
“The motions for summary judgment, (ECF Nos. 65 and 69), are denied as moot.”
“Dr. Leon's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 134), is denied, and IUHP's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 138), is granted on all claims.”
“IUHP's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 138), is granted on all claims. The case is over, and final judgment shall issue accordingly.”
“the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, dkt. [47] is denied, and defendant's motion for summary judgment, dkt. [48], is granted.”
“defendant's motion for summary judgment, dkt. [48], is granted. Final judgment consistent with this Order shall now issue.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 45) is granted. ... Marnocha's claims are dismissed on the merits with prejudice.”
“construes Defendant Sandra Olson-Steil's filing at ECF No. 43 as a Motion to Dismiss, and grants that Motion, (ECF No. 43). Olson-Steil is dismissed from this case.”
“Steil's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 47), is granted and Wendy Steil is awarded the Death Benefits under policy No. 31333-5 GAT.”
“The defendants' motion to dismiss, dkt. [50], is granted insofar as the Court has dismissed the case with prejudice”
“the motion to stay, dkt. [52], is denied as moot.”
“Mahurin's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 92), is granted.”
“The remaining Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 88), is granted.”
“Mr. Jordan's petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed.”
“his motion for relief pursuant to § 2255 is DENIED and this action is dismissed with prejudice.”
“the new motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 75), is denied.”
Screening order under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A in a prisoner Section 1983 case. The court dismissed the amended complaint, finding the jail failure-to-protect and conspiracy claims arising from a June 2020 attack time-barred under Indiana's two-year limitations period, the claims about disparaging songs frivolous and delusional, and the song-related defendants improper private actors not subject to Section 1983. The court gave the plaintiff until July 13, 2026 to show cause why judgment should not enter, and denied his several ancillary motions (including an unrelated preliminary-injunction request for paternity testing) as lacking any nexus to the case. Grounding: 'As presented, this case is frivolous and deserves no further judicial time.'
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Sweeney: 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 Sweeney with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sweeney, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sweeney's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace