Andrew S. Harris
How Judge Harris decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Harris enforces Rule 7.1's diversity-citizenship disclosure requirement strictly and sua sponte, twice ordering corrected statements when a party's LLC-membership disclosure was incomplete rather than letting a jurisdictional gap slide.
“Because it fails to specifically name its single member, Dolgencorp fails to properly allege diversity of citizenship and its 7.1 disclosure statement is therefore incomplete.”
He treats a discovery stay triggered by a pending qualified-immunity or jurisdictional motion as a hard bar, and will act on his own initiative to police it -- including vacating a party's own subpoena issued in violation of the stay.
“Tarvin's attempt at initiating discovery during the pendency of a qualified immunity motion is prohibited. ... Because Tarvin is prohibited from conducting any discovery pending ruling on Zimmerman's motion, the Court vacates the subpoena he issued.”
On expert-disclosure disputes, he applies the Fifth Circuit's four-factor substantial-justification/harmlessness test methodically, and treats a party's failure to respond to a motion as an independent, sufficient ground to grant it under the local rules, even before reaching the merits.
“As an initial matter, the Government's motion should be granted as unopposed due to Loveall's failure to respond. L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(3)(E).”
Cautions
In a case seeking pseudonymous litigation, he weighed the competing interests of individual-capacity defendants (who have a reputational stake in being named) against a minor's privacy interest, ultimately finding the minor's interest controlling but flagging that the ruling could be revisited once defendants answered.
“The Court therefore grants Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously [7] without prejudice to the right of Defendants to challenge this ruling once they have answered Doe's complaint [1].”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment - For the reasons set forth in this Order, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 22 is granted, and this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris on 02/27/2025”
“The Court therefore grants the motion as unopposed under Local Rule 7(b)(3)(E). Additionally, the Court finds the Government's arguments independently persuasive. The Court therefore grants its Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Designation [21] for Loveall's failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and Local Uniform Civil Rule 26(a).”
“The Court therefore grants Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously [7] without prejudice to the right of Defendants to challenge this ruling once they have answered Doe's complaint [1].”
A pro se plaintiff issued a subpoena to a state police department while a qualified-immunity motion to dismiss was pending and discovery was stayed under the local rules. Acting sua sponte, Harris vacated the improperly issued subpoena, explained that discovery may not proceed against an immunity-asserting defendant before the court rules on that defense, and cautioned the plaintiff that further noncompliance could result in sanctions.
“The Court finds the well-reasoned and thorough Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris should be adopted as the opinion of the Court. Marcum's claim for release is dismissed with prejudice; his claims related to bail and speedy trial are dismissed without prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted as the finding and holding of this Court. Consistent with the Report and Recommendation, Harris's petition [1] is dismissed without prejudice while his sentence-credit claim is dismissed with prejudice.”
“JUDGMENT as to Michael Christian Green (1), Count(s) 1, Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law. Defendant sentenced to 12 months confinement; 1 year supervised release; $1,500 fine; and $25 special assessment to be paid immediately. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris on 6/21/2024”
A personal-injury suit against a retailer removed on diversity grounds. Acting sua sponte, Harris found both defendants' Rule 7.1 corporate-disclosure statements deficient for failing to specifically identify the citizenship of each LLC member, citing Fifth Circuit authority that LLC ownership and membership are not synonymous, and ordered corrected statements within seven days.
A diversity-jurisdiction insurance-coverage suit in the Natchez (Western) Division. Acting sua sponte, Harris noted that neither party had filed the Rule 7.1 disclosure statement required in every diversity case and ordered both to do so within seven days.
“Pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Leave of Court is hereby granted for the filing of the foregoing dismissal without prejudice of the Criminal Complaint filed against the Defendant. The Court thereby grants the Government's motion to dismiss the Criminal Complaint without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Harris's docket at Jackson (3:xx case numbers, with some Natchez-area 5:xx and Gulfport-area matters referred to him) is dominated by three veins: (1) civil and criminal matters referred to him by the district's Article III judges for discovery management, case scheduling, and Reports and Recommendations, including a high-profile civil-rights suit arising from the 'Rankin County Goon Squad' law-enforcement misconduct case; (2) felony and misdemeanor criminal matters, including initial appearances, detention hearings, and -- where a defendant consents -- his own final plea and sentencing disposition; and (3) a smaller consent-jurisdiction Social Security disability-appeal caseload, largely inherited from his predecessor's docket. A currently pending example is United States v. Womack (3:25-cr-00006), an ongoing felony prosecution where Harris handled the initial appearance and detention proceedings before the case proceeded to trial scheduling before the district judge.
Put Judge Harris's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Harris actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Harris's own signed orders and cites them.