Sarah Evans Barker
How Judge Barker rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Barker
Sarah Evans Barker is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Barker received a commission on March 14, 1984. Judge Barker assumed senior status on June 30, 2014.
Judge Barker's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Barker, 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
Trial
File and serve proposed jury instructions three working days before trial unless the court orders a different schedule.
“File and serve your proposed jury instructions three working days prior to trial”
Trial
Before trial, mark exhibits and give the court and court reporter an exhibit list; use numbers for plaintiff and letters for defendant.
“Plaintiff's exhibits should be designated by numbers; defendant's by letters”
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 Barker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Stevens v. Poor, she denied summary judgment on the force claims against Poor and Saxon but granted it on retaliation and on the claims against Blanton.
“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
In Collins v. Stout, she denied the defendants' fee motion after finding that the parties' stipulated voluntary dismissal did not make them prevailing parties.
“Defendants Stout and Ozkaya's Motion for Attorney's Fees [Dkt. 79] is DENIED.”
Cautions
In Redwall Live v. ESG Security, she granted voluntary dismissal, dismissing the copyright claim with prejudice and the state-law claims without prejudice.
“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.”
In this order, the court found no authority under either the All Writs Act or the cited federal counsel statute to transport a prisoner in search of evidence for a state clemency proceeding.
“we hold that the Court lacks authority under either the All Writs Act or 18 U.S.C. § 3599 to issue the request transport order in search of evidence for use in a state clemency proceeding.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Stipulated Dismissal [Dkt. 108] is DENIED.”
“Defendants Stout and Ozkaya's Motion for Attorney's Fees [Dkt. 79] is DENIED.”
“Mr. Singh's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted.”
“Mr. Carnine's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Defendant Chaleunphonh's motion for summary judgment, dkt. [42] is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, dkt. [47] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. [88], is granted.”
“Mr. Ivy's requests for preliminary injunction, dkts. [80], [86] are denied.”
“Mr. Ivy's motion to impose sanctions on the Defendants, dkt. [104], is denied.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. 77] is DENIED.”
“the Court hereby DENIES Mr. Reed's Motion to Dismiss.”
“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).
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 | 15 |
| 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 | 15 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 10 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 11 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 8 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 5 |
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 Barker: 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 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