Donna Phillips Currault

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana magistrate 12 signed orders read

How Judge Currault decides

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

What persuades

Currault enforces settlement and statutory filing deadlines strictly: in a Deepwater Horizon medical-benefits (BELO) suit she recommended dismissal with prejudice as time-barred, and the motion to dismiss was granted.

“Magistrate Judge Currault recommended Plaintiff Todd M. Dufrene's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Rec. Doc. 11) filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company is GRANTED.”

Procedural preferences

On a mixed 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition (containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims) she recommends dismissal without prejudice unless the petitioner amends to drop the unexhausted claims.

“this case, which includes both exhausted and unexhausted claims [] is a 'mixed petition' . . . subject to dismissal without prejudice. ... the above-captioned matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state court review, unless Petitioner amends his petition to exclude and/or dismiss the unexhausted claims.”

Signed rulings

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

Young, III v. Ledet, et al. (re plaintiff Joshua Baudoin)
2:20-cv-02165-CJB-DPC · 2020-10-23

Her own signed F&R; pro se TPCJC COVID-19 conditions-of-confinement 1983 (one of ~40 plaintiffs). Baudoin never paid the fee/filed a pauper application, was released, and never updated his address, so she RECOMMENDED dismissal WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute (Rule 41(b)). This recommendation did not resolve a party motion.

Reynolds v. Griffin, et al.
2:22-cv-01305-SSV-DPC · 2022-12-13

Her R&R (R. Doc. 13) is supported by DJ Vance's adoption order (2022-12-13). Prisoner 1983; Spears hearing + 1915(e)(2)/1915A sua sponte review; recommended dismissal as frivolous; ADOPTED, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This screening dismissal did not resolve a party motion.

Cuza v. Day (Warden, Rayburn Correctional Center)
2:22-cv-01354-SM · 2023-05-05
Habeas petition (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“this case, which includes both exhausted and unexhausted claims [] is a 'mixed petition' . . . subject to dismissal without prejudice. ... the above-captioned matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state court review, unless Petitioner amends his petition to exclude and/or dismiss the unexhausted claims.”

Dufrene v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al.
2:24-cv-02154-CJB-DPC · 2024-12-02
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Magistrate Judge Currault recommended Plaintiff Todd M. Dufrene's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Rec. Doc. 11) filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company is GRANTED.”

Harris v. Tregre, et al.
2:25-cv-02519-EEF-DPC · 2025-12-30

Her own signed SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND REASONS. Non-prisoner IFP 1915(e)(2) screening; granted IFP, withheld summons, ordered show cause why 1983 false-arrest/malicious-prosecution claims should not be stayed under Wallace v. Kato / dismissed under Heck v. Humphrey (charges apparently pending), and held DA/ADA claims barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity (Imbler)/Monell. This show-cause order did not resolve a party motion.

Canyon v. Entergy Operations, Inc.
2:25-cv-01721 · 2026-03-19
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED”

Pierre o/b/o Clark v. Social Security Administration
2:25-cv-02557 · 2026-03-23
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“GRANTED, and judgment be entered REVERSING the Commissioner”

Payton v. Lamarque Ford
2:25-cv-01481 · 2026-03-20

Sua sponte 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) screening R&R (recommendation, not final). Recommends dismissal with prejudice without leave to amend of pro se FTC Act claim as legally frivolous plus Rule 41(b) failure to prosecute. Verbatim: 'Because any amendment would be futile, dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate.'

Dupont v. Truong
2:24-cv-02775 · 2026-04-17
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted in part

“proposed amended complaint (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”

Zeiser v. Social Security Administration
2:26-cv-00026 · 2026-04-29
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“the undersigned GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that”

Lee v. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration
2:25-cv-02462 · 2026-06-17
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (ECF Nos. 1, 14) be DENIED and that the Complaint”

Nguyen v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A.
2:24-cv-00518 · 2026-06-24
Motion to seal (plaintiff) Granted in part

“GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons”

Put Judge Currault's record to work

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

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