Andrew S. Harris
How Judge Harris rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Harris
Andrew S. Harris is a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi. He graduated from Millsaps College in 2007 and the University of Mississippi School of Law in 2012. Before his appointment, he clerked for District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III and practiced commercial litigation at Jones Walker in Jackson.
Judge Harris's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Harris'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 Harris decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Harris v. Dolgencorp, LLC, Harris ordered two defendants to correct their Rule 7.1 disclosure statements because they had not specifically identified all members of their limited liability companies and those members' citizenship. He raised the deficiency on his own initiative.
“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.”
In Tarvin v. Attorney General's Office, he vacated a subpoena issued while discovery was stayed pending an immunity motion, and warned the plaintiff that further noncompliance would draw sanctions.
“the Court vacates the subpoena he issued.”
In Loveall v. United States, Harris struck the plaintiff's expert designations after she failed to respond to the motion and failed to disclose sufficient facts supporting the proposed opinions. He separately applied the four factors for whether that disclosure failure was substantially justified or harmless.
“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).”
Harris denied reconsideration of a short answer-deadline extension even though the plaintiff disputed consenting to it, finding good cause, no bad faith, and no prejudice under Rule 6(b)(1)(A).
“The Court finds Defendant has shown good cause for an extension and that there is no bad faith in the request. Further, the extension here was short and has not caused Plaintiff any prejudice.”
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.”
A misdemeanor deprivation-of-civil-rights-under-color-of-law prosecution in which the defendant consented to proceed before Harris under 28 U.S.C. 636(a) for the full disposition. Harris took the defendant's guilty plea to a lesser offense, later adopted the presentence report, and imposed a sentence of 12 months' confinement, one year of supervised release, and a $1,500 fine.
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.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [12] is therefore denied.”
In view of all of the foregoing, the undersigned finds that transfer to the Western District of New York under § 1404 is appropriate and recommends that the case be transferred to that district.
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.
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 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
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 Southern District of Mississippi, not for Judge Harris: 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 | 1,034 | 9.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 613 | 8.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 385 | 9.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 26 | 21 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 21.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,034 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 988 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 972 | 11 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,139 | 11.9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,061 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,605 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,094 | 9.3 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 Harris with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Harris, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Harris's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace