Richard Lee Young

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 8 signed orders read

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 Section 1983 civil-rights cases he parses cross-motions for summary judgment claim by claim, denying the defense motion on triable claims (unlawful search/seizure, excessive force, battery) while granting it on others (unlawful arrest, Monell, false arrest), and denying 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.”

Cautions

Young's qualified-immunity analysis is notice-focused: he grants a defendant summary judgment where no clearly established precedent put the official on notice, and he declines to reach the constitutional merits once qualified immunity resolves the case.

“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.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Richardson a/k/a Cordellione v. Gray
3:23-cv-00212-RLY-CSW · 2025-09-03
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Eco-Built, Inc. v. The National Bank of Indianapolis
1:07-cv-00155-RLY-TAB · 2010-01-29
Summary judgment (defendant) 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.”

Elliott v. Sheriff of Rush County, Indiana
1:08-cv-00480-RLY-JMS · 2010-04-14
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Docket # 54) in its entirety.”

Kaiser v. Alcoa USA Corp.
3:20-cv-00278-RLY-CSW · 2024-03-25
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment as to Liability (Filing No. 131)”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Medrano v. Garland
3:20-cv-00251-RLY-CSW · 2024-03-29
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 109) is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Medrano's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 114) is DENIED.”

Wirtshafter v. Trustees of Indiana University
1:24-cv-00754-RLY-MKK · 2026-01-08
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“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.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 120).”

Carr v. Trustees of Purdue University
1:24-cv-01575-RLY-CSW · 2025-07-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“the University Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Filing No. 42) is GRANTED”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 12) is DENIED.”

United States v. Haggard
3:15-cr-00037-RLY-CMM · 2024-06-05
Motion for sentence reduction (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's motion for a reduction of his sentence (Filing No. 216) is DENIED.”

Put Judge Young's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Young actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Young's own signed orders and cites them.