Richard Lee Young
How Judge Young rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Young
Richard L. Young is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Young received a commission on March 6, 1998. Judge Young assumed senior status on March 31, 2023.
Judge Young's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Young's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Young decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Elliott v. Sheriff of Rush County, Indiana, Young resolved the cross-motions for summary judgment claim by claim. He denied the defendants' motion on unlawful search and seizure, excessive force, and battery; granted it on unlawful arrest and detention, Monell liability, false arrest, and false imprisonment; and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion.
“the court DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket # 48) with respect to Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful search and seizure and excessive force, and with respect to Plaintiff's state law claim for battery, but it GRANTS Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful arrest and unlawful detention, Plaintiff's Section 1983 Monell claims, and state law claims for false arrest and false imprisonment.”
Granted preliminary voting-rights relief where excluding otherwise qualifying public-university student IDs imposed a moderate burden on students and young voters and the state offered no sufficiently weighty justification for that distinction.
“Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on their claim that SB 10 imposes unconstitutional burdens on students and young voters in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Procedural preferences
In Chapo v. Jefferson County, Indiana, Young denied an amendment request filed after the scheduling deadline because the plaintiffs had not shown diligence or good cause.
“Plaintiffs failed to establish good cause because they did not demonstrate they exercised diligence in seeking leave to amend.”
Cautions
In Richardson a/k/a Cordellione v. Gray, Young granted Chaplain Gray summary judgment on qualified immunity. He found no clearly established precedent that would have put Gray on notice under the case's novel facts and did not reach the constitutional merits.
“Given the novel set of facts presented in this case, Chaplain Gray is entitled to qualified immunity as to all claims, and the motion for summary judgment, dkt. [75], is granted.”
After a defendant missed two hearings despite an explicit warning, Young adopted a recommendation to enter default, finding willful bad faith in the repeated failures to appear.
“twice failing to appear, is willfully acting in bad faith in this litigation. The court sees no clear error.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Given the novel set of facts presented in this case, Chaplain Gray is entitled to qualified immunity as to all claims, and the motion for summary judgment, dkt. [75], is granted.”
“Defendants's Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket # 44) is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion to Strike (Docket # 50) and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Docket # 53) are DENIED AS MOOT. A separate final judgment in favor of NBI shall issue forthwith.”
“the court DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket # 48) with respect to Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful search and seizure and excessive force, and with respect to Plaintiff's state law claim for battery, but it GRANTS Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful arrest and unlawful detention, Plaintiff's Section 1983 Monell claims, and state law claims for false arrest and false imprisonment.”
“The court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Docket # 54) in its entirety.”
“the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment as to Liability (Filing No. 131)”
“GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 145). Defendants' Cross-Motion is granted only with respect to Plaintiffs' claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) and denied on every other ground.”
“the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 109) is GRANTED.”
“Medrano's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 114) is DENIED.”
“the court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief under the November 2024 Policy in their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 97). The court GRANTS Plaintiffs' other claim for injunctive relief under the August 2024 Policy.”
“the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 120).”
“the University Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Filing No. 42) is GRANTED”
“Intervenor State of Indiana's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Filing No. 40) is GRANTED”
“Plaintiffs' case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ... Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 12) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion for a reduction of his sentence (Filing No. 216) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 85) is therefore GRANTED.”
“OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection (Dkt. 66)”
“The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, dkt. [1], is dismissed with prejudice.”
“This action is REMANDED to the ALJ for further proceedings.”
“The Commissioner's objection is OVERRULED. (Dkt. 19).”
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 | 6,277 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 6,277 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 6,525 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 6,172 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 6,412 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 5,714 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 5,564 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 5,171 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 4,723 |
| Mar 2022 | 4 | 4,005 |
| Sep 2021 | 31 | 3,424 |
| Mar 2021 | 25 | 3,074 |
| Sep 2020 | 19 | 2,361 |
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 Young: 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 Young with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Young, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Young's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace