Keith Starrett
How Judge Starrett rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Starrett no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Starrett
Keith Starrett is a senior judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Appointed by President George W. Bush, he received his commission on December 13, 2004. He assumed inactive status on October 31, 2025, and no longer hears cases on that court.
How Judge Starrett decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bounds v. Pine Belt Mental Health Care Resources, Starrett found the plaintiff's pre-suit notice deficient under Mississippi's statute. He held that the defect left no reasonable basis to predict recovery against the in-state defendants in the remand dispute.
“Bound's failure to comply with Miss. Code Ann. 11-46-11(2) leaves no reasonable basis upon which this Court could predict that he might recover against the in-state Defendants.”
In Liberty Insurance Underwriters v. LaBarre, Starrett reopened the case on reconsideration of a Rule 19 dismissal after Texas Brine disclaimed any objection to the case proceeding without it and its claims had been adjudicated in state court.
“Texas Brine expressly stated that it 'has no objection with Liberty proceeding with its claims against the Labarres and their counsel in Texas Brine's absence.' ... the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [168] ... The case is hereby re-opened.”
Procedural preferences
In Belcher v. The Grand Reserve MGM, Starrett resolved the defendants' Fair Housing Act summary-judgment motion claim by claim. He denied judgment on the racial-discrimination claim but granted it on the disability-discrimination claim.
“The Court denies Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' claim of racial discrimination under the FHA ... The Court grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' claim of disability discrimination under the FHA.”
In OrchestrateHR v. Trombetta, Starrett observed that the defendants had not explained a distinction between primary and secondary health insurance and had not supplied Wood's resume despite citing it in their motion.
“Defendants offer no explanation as to why the Court should distinguish between primary and secondary health insurance ... and does not provide the Court with Wood's resume, despite referencing it in their motion.”
Cautions
In OrchestrateHR v. Trombetta, Starrett held the defendants in civil contempt for continued defiance of a discovery order. After earlier, milder sanctions had failed, he imposed a $1,000 daily coercive fine until compliance.
“The Court is convinced that a harsh sanction is necessary to be effective, as Defendants have received multiple milder sanctions which have not served to deter their behavior. ... Defendants are further ordered to pay into the registry of the court $1000 per day, beginning from the date of this order, until they fully comply.”
He treats a party's failure to specifically support discovery objections as a waiver of those objections, even where the party attempted partial compliance instead: attempting to comply is not a substitute for preserving an objection.
“It is fundamental that the party resisting discovery must specifically show how each discovery request is irrelevant or otherwise objectionable. A party is not relieved of this burden because he chose to attempt to comply with the objectionable discovery requests instead.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion to remand [# 8] is denied and the motion to dismiss [# 10] is granted.”
“the in-state Defendants should be dismissed, while the motion to remand should be denied.”
“Alternative Motion to Sever and Remand [#9] filed on behalf of the Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiffs S. Lavon Evans Jr. Operating Co., Inc., and E & D Services Inc., is granted”
“the joinder in only the Motion to Remand [#12] filed on behalf of the Cross-Plaintiffs, Lucas Capital is denied.”
“the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [17] pursuant to Rules 12(b)(7) and 19(b). Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice. This case is closed.”
“the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [168] of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order [167] granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [17] under Rule 19. The case is hereby re-opened.”
“The Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [119] ... Defendants must give Plaintiff the first $5.0 million they receive from Texas Brine's pre-2012 insurers, regardless of the claims settled, as well as additional sums if the recovery exceeds certain amounts.”
“the Court denies this aspect of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [191], and it denies the remainder of the motion as moot in light of the parties' Partial Consent Judgment [198].”
“The Court denies Defendants' Motions to Strike [138] [152] [202] as moot.”
“For these reasons, the Court presently denies Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [229].”
“The Court also grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion for Monetary Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 [239]. The Court denies the motion with respect to Plaintiff's request for prejudgment interest ... The Court grants the motion with respect to Plaintiff's request for postjudgment interest.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike [300] is granted.”
“the Court finds ... the Motion to Disqualify [301] is not well taken and should be denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Trombetta's Motion for Summary Judgment [271] is denied. All claims against Trombetta remain pending.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Myers, Icenhower, and BP's Motion for Summary Judgment [308] is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted in that the following claims are dismissed with prejudice: ... It is denied in that the following claims remain pending”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike Testimony [308] is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted in that Wilson's testimony will be limited to that of a fact witness ... It is denied in that Bass's and Wood's expert testimony will be excluded.”
“The Court therefore will grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions [333]. Defendants are ordered to pay the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs associated with the filing of this motion. Defendants are further ordered to pay into the registry of the court $1000 per day ... until they fully comply with the Court's Order [311]”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion In Limine [395] is granted in part and denied in part as outlined above.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion In Limine [396] is granted in part and denied in part as outlined above.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion to Amend/Correct [407] is denied.”
“State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment [23] is granted. State Farm is not liable for any UM coverage under the Bieber Policy for the accident at issue in this case.”
“Sentry's Motion for Summary Judgment [25] is granted. All claims against Sentry are dismissed with prejudice.”
“The Court denies Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' claim of racial discrimination under the FHA ... The Court grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' claim of disability discrimination under the FHA ... grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' claim of disparate impact on the basis of race under the FHA”
“Finally, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.”
“For all these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter, Amend, or Vacate [143].”
“the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' Motion to Tax Costs to Plaintiffs [147]. The Court denies the motion with respect to $50.00 of fees for condensed transcripts, but the Court grants the motion in all other respects.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Of the 13 sampled dockets, 5 ended by settlement, agreed judgment, or consent decree with no contested ruling for the court to make (Rawls, Myrick, Harrison, EEOC v. Singley, Earls); the remaining 8 produced 12 classified motions, concentrated in habeas dismissals and a multi-defendant Section 1983 case (Jones v. Jones County) that generated five separate dispositive rulings over its two-and-a-half-year life.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Starrett was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2025.
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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.
A historical record
Judge Starrett no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.