Dee Dodson Drell
How Judge Drell rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Drell
Dee D. Drell is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Drell received a commission on April 10, 2003. Judge Drell assumed senior status on November 30, 2017.
Judge Drell's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Drell, 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
Filing
Manually deliver courtesy copies of contested motions, memoranda, responses, and attachments.
“Judge Drell requires courtesy copies of contested motions, supporting memorandum, responses, and attachments. Copies should be manually delivered to chambers at the address indicated above.”
Motions
Judge Drell maintains a motion date but does not routinely hold oral argument.
“Judge Drell maintains a motion date but does not routinely have oral argument.”
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 0001-2025: Procedures for Access and Management of Sealed or Restricted Documents ↗
- General Order 0001-2024: Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- SO 1.74 Service and Scheduling of Immigration Habeas Cases ↗
- SO 1.75 Regarding Third-Party Litigation Funding ↗
How Judge Drell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Longino, Drell denied the federal defendants’ motion after finding a factual dispute over whether fire-response guidance required action concerning a downed power line.
“Based on Plaintiffs’ extensive references, there is a genuine factual dispute about the existence of a policy requiring some form of action for down power lines, and, if so, the policy’s requirements and whether its existence would preclude the exercise of judgment or choice.”
In Louisiana College, Drell granted summary judgment on the college’s RFRA claim after analyzing the self-certification requirement as a substantial burden.
“For the following reasons, we find that Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as to its Religious Freedom and Restoration Act claim.”
In Pineda Parada v. Rice, he granted a temporary restraining order requiring a bond hearing after finding the petitioner likely had been detained under the wrong statute and had shown likely success and irreparable loss of liberty.
“We find that Pineda Parada will likely succeed on the merits of his claim. He has lived in the United States since 2023 and has been known by USCIS since October of 2023. As such, he should have been detained pursuant to § 1226(a) and provided a bond hearing. Instead, he has been detained pursuant to § 1225 and denied his due process rights.”
Procedural preferences
In Richard, Drell granted Valiant summary judgment on additional-insured coverage under the policy terms.
“(1) Valiant’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding additional insured coverage will be GRANTED;”
In Pineda Parada v. Rice, he denied a requested three-day show-cause response deadline so the parties could develop the facts needed to address the habeas petition.
“Requiring a response to the pending habeas petition within three days increases the risk of a ruling that inadequately addresses the issues due to more evolving or unknown facts. Both parties will be better served by a ruling based on the correct facts and applicable law, rather than a quick one.”
In one later request for expanded relief, the court treated its earlier final judgment as sufficient and denied additional declaratory and injunctive relief for lack of a live dispute.
“Considering the foregoing, LC’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief will be denied.”
In Bilyeu, he denied a stay for arbitration because the individual parties had not signed the corporate fee agreements and equitable estoppel did not bind them to those agreements.
“application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel would here be impermissible, and if permitted, it would nonetheless be inappropriate.”
In Louisiana Forestry Association, he transferred a wage-rule challenge to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because a related earlier case and appellate precedent called for that forum; he left the preliminary-injunction request for the receiving court.
“Fifth Circuit precedent and comity require we transfer this case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.”
Cautions
In Jones, Drell granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion and denied the plaintiff’s partial summary-judgment motion.
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment will be DENIED. This suit will be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.”
On a later request in Pineda Parada v. Rice, he denied a second temporary restraining order seeking immediate release because it duplicated the amended habeas petition's requested merits relief.
“Thus, we find the TRO to be nothing more than an attempt to have his petition decided immediately. Courts in the Western District of Louisiana have consistently denied such attempts, and this matter is no exception.”
In one challenge to a national-forest hunting rule, the court upheld the agency decision after reviewing the administrative record and finding that the challengers had not met the demanding standard for setting it aside.
“Plaintiffs have not overcome the high bar of showing that the 2012 FONSI was arbitrary and capricious contrary to law, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the following reasons, the motion will be DENIED.”
“For the following reasons, we find that Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as to its Religious Freedom and Restoration Act claim.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment will be DENIED. This suit will be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment will be DENIED.”
“(1) Valiant’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding additional insured coverage will be GRANTED;”
“(2) Valiant’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Offshore Energy Services’ (OES) claims for contractual liability will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;”
“and (3) Valiant’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the drilling rig exclusion will be GRANTED.”
“Before the court are two motions for summary judgment: one filed by the Historic District Business Association, Inc. (‘HDBA’) (Doc. 96) and the second filed by the City of Natchitoches, Mayor Lee Posey, Police Chief Micky Dove, and Samantha Bonnette (Doc. 102). For the reasons set forth herein, we find the motions should and will be GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, we find the motions should and will be GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the request for the issuance of an order to show cause is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED. Petitioner should be provided an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to § 1226(a) no later than November 12 at which the Department of Homeland Security will bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community and that no financial bond and conditions can mitigate his risk of flight.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 25) is DENIED.”
“IT WILL BE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 27) will be DENIED .”
“IT WILL FURTHER BE ORDERED that the Forest Service's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) will be GRANTED .”
“Considering the foregoing, LC’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief will be denied.”
“LC’S claim for leave to file its untimely attorney fee claim will be denied.”
“Third Party Defendant State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 65) will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as specified above. Only the issue of potential coverage under Mr. Lavergne’s Umbrella Policy remains in dispute.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Johanson Defendants’ motion to stay pending arbitration (Doc. 95) is DENIED.”
“Intervenors’ and the DOL’s ‘Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively to Transfer’ (Doc. 14) will be GRANTED in part. The Motion to Dismiss will be DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ ‘Motion for Preliminary Injunction’ (Doc. 1) will be DENIED, but without prejudice to their right to reurge same in the proper court.”
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 | 17 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 5 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 17 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 7 |
| Mar 2024 | 17 | 9 |
| Sep 2023 | 15 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 19 | 11 |
| Sep 2022 | 5 | 11 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 14 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 8 | 6 |
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 Western District of Louisiana, not for Judge Drell: 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 | 1,541 | 13.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 287 | 8.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 832 | 13.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 398 | 16.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 27.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,541 | 13.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,194 | 16.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,966 | 10.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,186 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,330 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,064 | 11.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,190 | 11.5 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 Drell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Drell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Drell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace