Sarah Evans Barker

How Judge Barker rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
1984-03-14
Education
Indiana University, Bloomington (B.S., 1965); American University, Washington College of Law (J.D., 1969)
Signed orders read
14

How Judge Barker decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On Eighth Amendment excessive-force summary judgment she denies the motion where contradicting accounts create genuine disputes about the necessity of force, while granting it on retaliation and as to officers not shown to be involved.

“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Dkt. [80]. The motion is granted as to all Defendants on the retaliation claim and granted as to Officer Blanton on the Eighth Amendment claims. The motion is denied as to the Eighth Amendment claims against Sgt. Poor and Officer Saxon.”

Granted Eighth Amendment excessive-force summary judgment where the undisputed evidence showed short OC-spray bursts used to restore order after an inmate barricaded his cell and refused repeated commands, with no observed injury in the medical record.

“Taking these factors together, the Defendants' conduct does not show malicious force or an application of force that exceeded the good faith need to restore order.”

Procedural preferences

Treats a stipulated voluntary dismissal as self-executing and not a judicially sanctioned change in the parties' legal relationship, so a defendant is not a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees and the catalyst theory is rejected under Buckhannon.

“Defendants Stout and Ozkaya's Motion for Attorney's Fees [Dkt. 79] is DENIED.”

Cautions

On a Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal she attaches conditions as 'the quid for the quo' of avoiding res judicata, dismissing a futile copyright claim with prejudice while allowing state-law claims out without prejudice for refiling.

“Plaintiff's motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED. Count I of the Amended Complaint, alleging copyright infringement, is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE; Counts II, III, and IV are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

In prison medical-care injunction requests, a demand that defendants follow through with all treatment is too broad under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; renewed relief must be tied to current information and a more specific request.

“Mr. Carter's request that the Court order the defendants to follow through with all treatment is too broad under the PLRA.”

Signed rulings

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

Stevens v. Poor
1:22-cv-00660-SEB-CSW · 2024-08-01
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Dkt. [80]. The motion is granted as to all Defendants on the retaliation claim and granted as to Officer Blanton on the Eighth Amendment claims. The motion is denied as to the Eighth Amendment claims against Sgt. Poor and Officer Saxon.”

Perry v. Reagle
1:21-cv-02753-SEB-TAB · 2024-03-05
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“As to Defendants Reagle, Alsip, Pfleeger, and Williams, summary judgment is granted as to all claims except those relating to the cleanliness of Plaintiff's cell and the showers in Pendleton's G-house during the time Plaintiff was housed there. The cleanliness claims will be resolved by a settlement or trial.”

Redwall Live Corporation v. ESG Security, Inc.
1:13-cv-01849-SEB-DML · 2015-02-24
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED. Count I of the Amended Complaint, alleging copyright infringement, is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE; Counts II, III, and IV are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant's parallel motion to dismiss with prejudice [Docket No. 41] is thus granted as to Count I and denied as moot with respect to the other counts.”

Collins v. Stout
1:12-cv-01136-SEB-MJD · 2014-03-28
Motion to vacate (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Stipulated Dismissal [Dkt. 108] is DENIED.”

Motion for attorney fees (defendant) Denied

“Defendants Stout and Ozkaya's Motion for Attorney's Fees [Dkt. 79] is DENIED.”

Singh v. Bondi
1:25-cv-02101-SEB-TAB · 2025-10-30
Petition for writ of habeas corpus (petitioner) Granted

“Mr. Singh's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted.”

Smithers v. Carnine
1:22-cv-01897-SEB-MKK · 2023-10-12
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Mr. Carnine's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED.”

Shepler v. S&H Trucking, Inc.
1:21-cv-02927-SEB-KMB · 2023-08-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Dedrick v. Chaleunphonh
4:23-cv-00082-SEB-KMB · 2025-02-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Chaleunphonh's motion for summary judgment, dkt. [42] is GRANTED”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, dkt. [47] is DENIED.”

Ivy v. Mershon
1:23-cv-01751-SEB-TAB · 2026-03-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. [88], is granted.”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Mr. Ivy's requests for preliminary injunction, dkts. [80], [86] are denied.”

Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Denied

“Mr. Ivy's motion to impose sanctions on the Defendants, dkt. [104], is denied.”

Sandlin v. Bell Sports, Inc.
1:20-cv-02333-SEB-DLP · 2022-07-27
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. 77] is DENIED.”

United States v. Reed
1:24-cr-00055-SEB-MJD · 2025-11-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the Court hereby DENIES Mr. Reed's Motion to Dismiss.”

Gill v. Brown
1:23-cv-01766-SEB-TAB · 2026-08-19
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“The defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. [42], is GRANTED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 377.0 days (N = 8).

Draft for Judge Barker with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Barker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Barker's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace