Debra M. Brown
How Judge Brown rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brown
Debra Marie Brown is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Brown received a commission on November 5, 2013.
Judge Brown's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Brown's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Brown decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Graham v. City of Cleveland, Brown held that a failure to follow an internal policy did not itself establish a constitutional violation and examined whether the complaint pleaded facts showing notice of the risk.
“the failure to follow a relevant policy does not, standing alone, establish a violation of a constitutional right.”
In the Clean Air Act citizen suit against X.AI Corp., Brown held that the EPA Administrator could intervene, but the statute did not let the United States terminate the existing plaintiffs’ action.
“the United States’ plan to dismiss this case upon intervention will not be permitted.”
Procedural preferences
In Johnson v. City of Indianola, Brown denied a summary-judgment motion filed one day after the dispositive-motion deadline without a request for an extension. She expressly reserved any view on the motion's merits.
“This procedural ruling is not intended to suggest that the motion for summary judgment is without merit.”
In Woods v. Berryhill, Brown struck Woods' post-judgment motion because it lacked a separate supporting memorandum and violated other local rules. She found that his pro se status did not excuse noncompliance.
“Woods’ status as a pro se litigant does not excuse him from complying with the Court’s Local Rules.”
In Hicks v. State Farm, Brown struck a separate statement of undisputed facts because it could circumvent the local page limits. She denied the associated partial-summary-judgment motion without prejudice and allowed a prompt, rules-compliant refiling without new grounds or evidence.
“Such filings provide an avenue for circumventing the page limits imposed by the Local Rules.”
Cautions
In Johnson v. City of Indianola, Brown dismissed a § 1983 official capacity claim against a police officer as duplicative of the claim against the city. She allowed the parallel state law official capacity claim because the Mississippi Tort Claims Act permits an employee to be joined with the government entity.
“As a general rule, § 1983 claims against an officer in his official capacity are duplicative with the claims against the relevant entity and, therefore, are properly dismissed.”
In Wheeler v. UMB Bank, Brown granted remand after finding the removing defendants had not established improper joinder. She declined to resolve uncertainty in Mississippi law against the possibility of recovery from the in-state defendant.
“any ambiguities of state law ... must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The motion to dismiss [8] is GRANTED and the claims brought against the City, Bingham, Bracey, Lomax, and Livingston are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim.”
“the first motion to dismiss will be denied.”
“The second motion to dismiss [18] is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part. The motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of the Section 1983 claims asserted against Fisher in his official capacity. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
“Because both the motion for summary judgment and the joinder to it were filed after the dispositive motions deadline, the motions [71][72] are DENIED as untimely.”
“Accordingly, MVSU's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Based on the above analysis, Defendants' motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motions are DENIED to the extent they seek dismissal of this action.”
“As to Defendants' request for transfer of venue, the motions are GRANTED. Since this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over certain Defendants and venue is inappropriate in this District, it is hereby ORDERED that this ease is transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).”
“Based on the above analysis, the Court finds that the Motion for Summary Judgment [44] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Chase is awarded a judgment against Plaintiff for the balance of the credit card account in the amount of $30,063.76. The request for attorney's fees, however, is denied without prejudice at this time.”
“For the reasons above, Defendants' motion for summary judgment [14] is GRANTED. A judgment consistent with this opinion will issue.”
“Denice has not identified a policymaker or a policy which was enacted with deliberate indifference. Furthermore, Denice has not shown that Damion suffered a constitutional deprivation. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to the § 1983 claim.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court: (1) STRIKES Plaintiffs response [21] opposing Defendant's motion for summary judgment; (2) STRIKES Plaintiffs responsive memorandum [20] opposing Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and (3) GRANTS in Part and DENIES in Part Defendants' motion for summary judgment [15]. The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs § 1983 claims, and is DENIED as to Plaintiffs state law claims, over which this Court has declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. This matter is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Coahoma County.”
“For the reasons above, Defendant's motion for summary judgment [27] is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons above, Defendants' motion for summary judgment [14] is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part. The motion is granted to the extent it seeks dismissal of: (1) Demetrius' § 1983 claims against the City and against Rosenthal, O'Bannon, and Hagerman in their official capacities; (2) Eugenia's § 1983 claims against the City and against Rosenthal, O'Bannon, and Hagerman in their official capacities; and (3) Eugenia's § 1983 claims against Hagerman in his individual capacity. The motion is denied as to: (1) Demetrius' § 1983 claim against Hagerman in his individual capacity; (2) the state law claims; and (3) in all other respects.”
“For the reasons below, the motion will be denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- As Chief Judge of a three-active-judge district, her active docket spans Social Security appeals, employment and civil-rights claims, prisoner civil-rights suits, insurance and diversity contract disputes, copyright and criminal matters.
- Recent filings on her docket include a 2026 Clean Air Act citizen suit against an AI-data-center power plant and a state-court removal action naming an AI company as a defendant, reflecting the district's growing caseload of technology-adjacent disputes alongside its traditional civil-rights and Delta-region litigation.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, not for Judge Brown: 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 | 563 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 121 | 2.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 199 | 4.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 242 | 11.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 1 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 563 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 734 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 761 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 640 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 592 | 10.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 633 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 567 | 9 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 Brown with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brown, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brown's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace