Brian Matthew Morris

United States District Court for the District of Montana Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 16 signed orders read

How Judge Morris decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In a tribal-jurisdiction challenge to a Major Crimes Act indictment, Morris found the exhaustion-of-tribal-remedies doctrine limited to civil disputes and declined to extend it to federal criminal prosecutions absent supporting authority -- he wants a defendant to point to a case squarely on point, not an analogy, before he will dismiss an indictment on sovereignty grounds.

“King fails to cite to, and the Court fails to locate, any authority supporting the proposition that the tribal exhaustion requirement applies to criminal actions brought pursuant to the MCA or pursuant to other federal laws of general, non-territorial applicability.”

Procedural preferences

On a prisoner civil-rights claim, Morris enforces PLRA exhaustion strictly: partial use of the grievance process (informal plus formal grievance, no warden or director appeal) is not enough, even where the plaintiff claims the process confused him.

“Guillen failed to exhaust his administrative procedure before filing his lawsuit. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”

Cautions

When Morris concludes the district court lacks jurisdiction over a removal-related challenge, he does not simply dismiss and leave the plaintiff to refile -- he transfers the case to the appropriate court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. 1631 and preserves interim relief (here, an existing TRO) rather than let a jurisdictional gap harm a party facing imminent removal.

“Given the short time-period for filing a petition for review attacking his final administrative order of removal, the interests of justice would be served by an immediate transfer of Wheeler's petition to the Ninth Circuit.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Wheeler v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
4:25-cv-00103-BMM · 2026-01-09
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is DENIED as moot.”

United States v. King
CR-23-98-GF-BMM-1 · 2024-08-19
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“King's motion to dismiss (Doc. 48) is DENIED.”

Guillen v. Johnson
CV 22-019-GF-BMM-JTJ · 2023-03-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. 25.)”

Judgment on the pleadings (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DISMISSED. (Doc. 32.)”

Estate of Michael Rogel v. City of Bozeman
2:24-cv-00034 · 2024-11-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant BPD's Motion to Dismiss (14) is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant Officer Ogden's Motion to Dismiss (18) is GRANTED in part.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Officer's Motion to Dismiss (20) is GRANTED.”

United States v. Loy, Sr.
6:20-cr-00013 · 2021-02-02
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted

“Upon the motion of the United States of America, and for good cause shown, the indictment is dismissed without prejudice.”

Rutherford et al v. Health Care Service Corporation et al
6:24-cv-00081 · 2025-12-19
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court denies Rutherford's motion for partial summary judgment on his UTPA claim (Doc. 106).”

Motions to stay (defendant) Moot / procedural

“HCSC's Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff Johnny Rutherford's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot.”

Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Granted

“HCSC's Motion for Reconsideration of Class Certification (Doc. 124) is GRANTED.”

Hiskey et al v. Insurance Company of the West
4:18-cv-00038 · 2018-07-20
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand (Doc. 8) is GRANTED.”

Aarstad v. BNSF Railway Company et al
4:17-cv-00072 · 2018-10-15
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' 13 Motion to Remand is GRANTED and this case is to be remanded to the Montana 8th Judicial Court, Cascade County.”

Ravalli County Republican Central Committee v. McCulloch et al
6:14-cv-00058 · 2015-12-14
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 70.)”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 88.)”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 91.)”

Contway v. Lukens et al
4:24-cv-00031 · 2024-05-14
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“Contway accordingly has established the Winter elements. A preliminary injunction proves warranted at this time.”

Ondoua v. Montana State University et al
4:18-cv-00005 · 2019-03-21
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted in part

“Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 33 is GRANTED with respect to Counts 7,8,9,15,16 and 20. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED with respect to all of the other Counts. Counts 7,8,9,15, and 16 is DISMISSED without prejudice. Count 20 is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Corpron v. C.O. Blair et al
6:23-cv-00031 · 2024-06-20
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted

“Corpron's motion to compel and motion for sanctions are GRANTED, as described above. (Docs. 25 and 32.) The Court shall at trial instruct the jury that it may infer that the spoiled or destroyed evidence described in this Order would have been unfavorable to Defendants.”

Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Granted

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median motion-to-ruling time: 27 days (N = 1).

The judge's enumerated dockets span federal criminal prosecutions (many arising on Montana's Indian reservations), prisoner civil-rights suits, insurance and contract removals, and habeas matters, consistent with his role as Chief Judge sitting in Great Falls. Several sampled cases were referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial management and returned to Morris only for dispositive rulings after a party withheld consent to magistrate jurisdiction.

Put Judge Morris's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Morris actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Morris's own signed orders and cites them.