Matthew P. Brookman
How Judge Brookman rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brookman
Matthew Paul Brookman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Brookman received a commission on March 31, 2023.
Judge Brookman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Brookman, 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 the briefs can cite their docket numbers.
“Motions and exhibits must be filed before supporting briefs so that the brief”
Motions
Before moving for summary judgment, contact the other parties about any planned cross-motion.
“Counsel planning to move for summary judgment must contact counsel for the”
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 Brookman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Coates v. Warden, Brookman denied the warden's summary judgment motion on exhaustion. The warden relied on the ordinary grievance policy, while the plaintiff's sexual abuse claim fell under the PREA process; staff had directed her to report by letter, and the warden did not show that the applicable process was available. Brookman gave Rule 56(f) notice of possible judgment for the plaintiff on exhaustion.
“Warden Brown has not met her burden of proof that the grievance process was available to Ms. Coates.”
In a First Amendment preliminary-injunction challenge, treated a disclosure law as likely viewpoint discriminatory where burdens attached only to recommendations opposing company management, and found the law failed even intermediate scrutiny.
“At bottom, H.B. 1273 cannot withstand intermediate scrutiny because the statute does not ‘directly advance[] the governmental interest asserted.’”
Cautions
In Ames v. Federal Express, Brookman treated the plaintiff's perfunctory sex-based hostile-work-environment argument as waived and granted the employer summary judgment on all counts.
“FedEx's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 71) is GRANTED on all counts. Final judgment shall issue by separate order.”
In one Rule 11 matter, he imposed a $10,000 personal sanction on counsel after five briefs cited nonexistent cases, including one submitted after the issue was flagged.
“Attorney Policchio is personally sanctioned $10,000”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“FedEx's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 71) is GRANTED on all counts. Final judgment shall issue by separate order.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion is: ... GRANTED and the defendant's previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in the last judgment issued) of 60 months months is reduced to 54 months.”
“Warden Brown's motion for summary judgment, dkt. [19], is denied.”
“The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the due process and state-law claims, as well as the equal protection claim against INDOT; this left only the Title VII claim against INDOT and the equal protection claim against Leming and Weaver, in their individual and official capacities.”
“The district court later granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.”
“The Court therefore ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition.”
“Ms. Kissel's motion for compassionate release, dkt. [867], is denied.”
“his motions for compassionate release, dkts. [662], [667], and [669], are denied as moot.”
“The plaintiff's motions to dismiss, dkt. [51], dkt. [52], are GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction, (Docket No. 26; GL Docket No. 23), are GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction, (Docket No. 26; GL Docket No. 23), are GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), (Docket No. 29), is therefore GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Complaint, (Docket No. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice, and with leave to amend.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Docket No. 84), is therefore DENIED as moot.”
“the Court OVERRULES Claimant's Objection, (Docket No. 24),”
“AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision.”
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Brookman: 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 Brookman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brookman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brookman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace