Kellie M. Barr
How Judge Barr rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Barr
Kellie M. Barr was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Indiana on November 1, 2022. She graduated from Indiana University Bloomington in 2003 and earned her law degree from Indiana University Maurer School of Law in 2006. Before joining the bench, she clerked for the Indiana Court of Appeals and District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson and worked as a litigation attorney and healthcare counsel.
Judge Barr's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Barr, 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
A party seeking oral argument by a lawyer with less than seven years of practice may file a request while a motion is briefed or promptly afterward.
“While a motion is being briefed or promptly thereafter, a party may file a Request for Oral Argument for Less Experienced Attorney”
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 Barr decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Rule 59(e) relief requires manifest error or newly discovered evidence; disagreement with how an administrative decision weighed a medical opinion did not suffice where the report was not incomplete and the decision built a logical bridge to the record.
“Because Christopher has not met the burden to show that the Court committed a manifest error of law warranting amending the judgment entered pursuant to Rule 59(e), the Court denies his Motion to Alter Judgment.”
In Mark A. B., remand followed when the ALJ cited favorable treatment observations without confronting contrary evidence from actual workplace interactions.
“Rather, the problem is that the ALJ did not confront the materially contrary information contained in those same records.”
Procedural preferences
After a scheduling deadline has passed, newly discovered evidence must explain why each proposed new claim could not have been raised earlier; a generalized account of new information did not establish Rule 16 diligence.
“When, as here, ‘a party presents an insufficiently robust explanation of why [it] was diligent, there is no good cause.’”
For expired deadlines, substitution of counsel did not show excusable neglect where the missed expert deadline predated prior counsel's withdrawal; a still-open discovery deadline received a limited extension for good cause.
“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to reset the expert disclosure deadlines, as Plaintiff has not met the requisite standard needed to do so. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request to reset the discovery deadline, such that all discovery in this case must be completed by October 5, 2026.”
In Smith, Barr recommended dismissal without prejudice for an inactive named plaintiff because his omission from the amended complaint and lack of prejudice or disruption did not justify the harsher sanction.
“Nevertheless, the undersigned concludes that a dismissal with prejudice for Mr. Boyd's inaction would not be an appropriate sanction.”
Cautions
A qualified-immunity response must identify precedent defining the asserted right at a factually specific level; broad reliance on a Fourth Amendment false-arrest case did not clearly establish a due-process malicious-prosecution theory involving a business license.
“Mr. Patel's sole reliance on Olson fails to do this. And when ‘a plaintiff fails to identify analogous precedent clearly establishing the law, the district court must grant summary judgment for the defendant[s]’ because they are entitled to qualified immunity.”
In Catherine D., failing to challenge vocational testimony at the administrative hearing forfeited judicial review of that objection; the asserted error was not facially implausible enough to excuse forfeiture.
“Accordingly, the Court finds no reversible error on this issue.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion asking that certain case management plan deadlines be reset or extended in this case. [Dkt. 43.]”
“For the reasons explained herein, Christopher's Motion to Alter Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) is DENIED. [Dkt. 19.]”
“Ms. Green's Motion to Strike, [dkt. 56], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendants Officer Ahlersmeyer and Detective Mastin are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Patel's § 1983 malicious prosecution claim. Their Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED. [Dkt. 56.]”
“For the reasons explained below, Valeo's Motion for Leave to File a Counterclaim is DENIED. [Dkt. 74.]”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court REVERSES the Commissioner's decision denying Mark benefits and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (sentence 4).”
“As explained above, Apria's Motion for a Partial Stay of Proceedings, [dkt. 97], is GRANTED.”
“Thus, the Court GRANTS IN PART Valeo's Motion for Extension of Time, [dkt. 87], such that it extends the case management plan deadlines as follows:”
“Motion to Amend is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. [Dkt. 48.]”
Barr recommended dismissing Anthony Boyd’s claims without prejudice after he failed to answer a show-cause order and ceased participating. His omission from the amended complaint and the absence of discernible prejudice or disruption made dismissal with prejudice inappropriate. Hanlon adopted the recommendation on May 29.
“Therefore, the decision below is AFFIRMED. Final judgment shall issue accordingly.”
“Therefore, the ALJ's decision is AFFIRMED. Final judgment shall issue accordingly.”
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 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 Barr: 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 Barr with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Barr, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Barr's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace