Kristi Haskins Johnson
How Judge Johnson rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Johnson
Kristi Haskins Johnson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Johnson received a commission on December 1, 2020.
Judge Johnson's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Johnson'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 Johnson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At summary judgment, evidence specifically disputing each stated reason for termination created a jury question on the surviving contract claim even though the court resolved the constitutional theories for the defendants.
“The Court finds a genuine dispute of fact exists as to whether UMMC had cause to terminate Dr. Papin’s employment, and this issue is appropriate for the jury to resolve. It therefore denies summary judgment on this claim.”
In an emergency air transport coverage suit, the judge allowed a contract claim to proceed because allegations about the child’s condition and travel distance plausibly brought the treatment within the policy’s emergency-care exception.
“Taken as true, these allegations support a reasonable inference that delaying treatment could cause serious harm. Anderegg therefore plausibly alleges that J.A.’s transport falls within the emergency-care exception.”
Procedural preferences
On a preliminary-injunction motion in an IDEA education dispute, the judge held a full evidentiary hearing with exhibit lists from both sides before ruling from the bench, rather than deciding on the papers alone.
“Argument presented to the Court. Exhibits admitted: P-1 through P-5; D-1 through D-15. The Court DENIED re 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Olivia Boone.”
In Papin v. University of Mississippi Medical Center, she denied immediate partial judgment and interlocutory review after finding the request did not outweigh the policy against piecemeal appeals.
“Nothing asserted by Papin ‘outweigh[s] the important concerns underlying “the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.”’”
In one evidentiary ruling, the judge allowed a changed deposition answer to be tested through cross-examination instead of excluding the testimony.
“The City may highlight the change in testimony on cross-examination, but exclusion is not the proper remedy.”
Cautions
In Papin v. University of Mississippi Medical Center, she denied a broad request to exclude comparison evidence because it could bear on the surviving contract claim.
“The Court agrees, and thus denies the motion to the extent that UMMC seeks to broadly exclude evidence that Dr. Papin was treated differently from other residents for purposes of whether UMMC breached the Contract.”
In a second-filed lease dispute, the court enforced the compulsory-counterclaim rule when the party had repeatedly reserved a claim in the first action but never pleaded it there.
“Equity does not relieve a party of a deadline they thrice acknowledged and never once moved to meet.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court DENIED re 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Olivia Boone.”
“For the reasons stated in the Court's Order entered today, and in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Court enters this Final Judgment for Defendant. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.”
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [140].”
“The Court also GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dr. Papin’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [144].”
“The Court further denies as moot Dr. Papin’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply [160] and Motion to Strike [161].”
“Thus, Papin’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment under Rule 54 [179] is DENIED.”
“Because the Court finds not all three factors are present, the Motion for Interlocutory Appeal [181] is DENIED and the Motion to Stay Case [183] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART UMMC’s Amended Motion in Limine [175].”
“The Court further GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dr. Papin’s Amended Motion in Limine [177].”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the [15] Motion and FINDS AS MOOT the [26, 29] Motions.”
“For the reasons above, the Court ADOPTS the [49] Report, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the [38] Motion, and DENIES the [29, 35] Motions.”
“For the reasons above, the Court grants Landlord’s [3] Motion and dismisses this case.”
After no timely objection to the magistrate judge's report, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. This screening disposition did not resolve a party motion.
The court adopted an unopposed recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to respond to a show cause order or prosecute the case. This dismissal did not resolve a party motion.
“The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part BCBS’s [5] Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismisses Counts II and III; Count I proceeds.”
“For these reasons, the Court denies Smith’s [5] Motion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Her general civil docket includes employment discrimination and retaliation suits, special-education (IDEA) disputes, personal-injury removals, insurance and contract cases, qui tam actions, prisoner civil-rights and habeas petitions, and criminal cases, drawn from the Jackson division's docket.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
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 Southern District of Mississippi, not for Judge Johnson: 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 Johnson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Johnson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Johnson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace