Darrel James Papillion
How Judge Papillion rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Papillion
Darrel James Papillion is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Papillion received a commission on June 1, 2023.
Judge Papillion's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Papillion, 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
Contacting chambers
Do not use email as a substitute for a properly filed motion.
“An email should not be used as a substitute for a properly-filed motion.”
Conferences
Request a continuance or status conference by formal motion stating why good cause exists.
“Requests for a continuance or status conference must be made through a formal motion clearly explaining why good cause exists for the continuance or conference.”
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).
How Judge Papillion decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Cyr, the court let an excessive-force claim based on an alleged physical assault proceed while dismissing a separate constitutional claim based only on verbal threats. The distinction turned on the alleged conduct, even though the threats preceded the assault.
“That Defendants Mizell and Rester ultimately followed through on their verbal threats does not change the fact that the threats themselves did not amount to constitutional violations.”
Procedural preferences
In a long-running case, Papillion declined further leave to amend after prior amendment opportunities and the prejudice another amendment would cause the defendants. Counsel seeking another amendment should address that procedural history.
“The Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his claims against the OPDA Defendants given the length of time this action has been pending, the numerous allowances to amend that were previously granted, and the undue prejudice the OPDA Defendants would suffer”
In Hutchinson-Harper, Papillion enforced the dispositive-motion deadline after the school board failed to show good cause for filing just before trial.
“Enforcing the dispositive-motion deadline is the course the Court finds most consistent with both the integrity of the scheduling order and the just determination of this action.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED Progressive's Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 41) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims against Progressive are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Autoliv's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims against Autoliv are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Allstate's Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 14) is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED Defendant's Motion in Limine (Record Document 232) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons are OVERRULED, and the motion for review of the magistrate judge's order (R. Doc. 120) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 16) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Chubb European Group SE are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that State Farm’s motion to dismiss (R. Doc. 12) is GRANTED, and Thomas’s claims against it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that OMV and Porter’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and Hodge’s claims against them are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Before the Court are a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant, Michael Kernan and a Motion for Trial by Jury filed by Plaintiff, Anitra Gilmore. For the reasons that follow, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (R. Doc. 47) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. All claims brought by the Plaintiff Parishes (except St. Tammany Parish, Livingston Parish, and Washington Parish), Plaintiff Municipalities, Plaintiff Levee Districts, Plaintiff Drainage Districts, and Plaintiff Association are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs’ NEPA claim (Count IX) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“The Plaintiff States and Plaintiff Policyholders have failed to establish they are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, their motion for preliminary injunction must be denied. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (R. Doc. 14) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (R. Doc. 30) is GRANTED and that Plaintiffs’ IDEA claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (R. Doc. 30) is GRANTED and that Plaintiffs’ ADA claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“For those reasons, O.E. has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his ADA claim. ... Therefore, he is not entitled to preliminary relief. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (R. Doc. 16) is DENIED.”
“In light of the foregoing, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to renew his partial summary judgment (R. Doc. 32) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Gomez’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent Gomez seeks summary judgment against Avondale, Gomez’s motion is GRANTED. To the extent Gomez seeks summary judgment against Hopeman Brothers, Gomez’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, to the right to be reurged when the automatic bankruptcy stay is lifted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 103 days (N = 1).
- From the enumerated 2024 cases plus the targeted lookup: a young, broad New Orleans civil docket: FTCA suits vs the United States, maritime/offshore (Jones v. DHD Offshore), Fair Credit Reporting Act (15:1681), ADA Title III public-accommodation (42:12181), first-party insurance diversity (Allstate, Hiscox), Section 1983 civil-rights and prisoner civil-rights, contract, and an Oil Pollution Act enforcement action (US v. Lloyd's syndicate, 33:2701).
- NOS examples captured below.
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 | 30 |
| 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 | 26 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 30 | 26 |
| Sep 2025 | 30 | 19 |
| Mar 2025 | 33 | 17 |
| Sep 2024 | 35 | 18 |
| Mar 2024 | 48 | 12 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 10 |
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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, not for Judge Papillion: 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 | 10,411 | 79.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 3,511 | 86.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,814 | 14.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 4,062 | 86.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 23.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 10,411 | 79.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,506 | 10.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,610 | 24.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,635 | 69.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 11,535 | 24.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 16,631 | 36 months |
| Sep 2019 | 9,196 | 10.3 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 Papillion with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Papillion, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Papillion's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace