John Daniel Breen
How Judge Breen rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Breen
J. Daniel Breen is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Breen received a commission on March 14, 2003. Judge Breen assumed senior status on March 18, 2017.
Judge Breen's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Breen, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
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 Breen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Rule 12(b)(6) screening dismissal of a prisoner's Bivens claim, he applies the sovereign-immunity bar strictly against agency defendants and requires an official- vs. individual-capacity distinction to be pled correctly before reaching the merits of a constitutional claim.
“For these reasons, Williams's claims against the BOP are DISMISSED because the BOP, as an agency of the United States, is not a proper defendant in a Bivens-type action.”
On a reduction-in-force employment discrimination claim, he applies the Sixth Circuit's heightened RIF standard strictly: showing that one non-protected employee was retained over the plaintiff is not, by itself, enough to survive summary judgment without evidence the plaintiff was more qualified or of a discriminatory statement.
“evidence that one competent employee was retained over another is not sufficiently probative to allow a factfinder to believe that the employer intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff because of her race in the RIF context.”
On a Title III wiretap suppression motion, he credits 'spot monitoring' of a large volume of intercepted calls as reasonable minimization, deferring to the government's latitude in multi-defendant drug conspiracy investigations and requiring the defendant to show a pattern of improper interception, not just isolated calls.
“The Court finds that the Government's minimization efforts in this case were not unreasonable. The instant prosecution involves numerous defendants for drug offenses. Thus, the Government is accorded latitude in conducting the wiretaps.”
In United States v. Amy Junior, Judge Breen granted compassionate release after an evidentiary hearing showed that Junior was the only available caregiver for her incapacitated husband; he also weighed her rehabilitation under section 3553(a).
“the Court finds that Junior has established extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release from home confinement based upon her husband's inability to care for himself and the unavailability of other family members to assume a caretaking role.”
Procedural preferences
In Michael v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Judge Breen reviewed objections to a magistrate judge's order for clear error under Rule 72(a) and found that the plaintiffs had argued for de novo review without identifying clear error.
“Plaintiffs, apparently working under the mistaken assumption that this Court is to conduct a de novo review, express their disagreement with Judge York's order, rehashing many of the same arguments presented below. What they do not do, however, is contend that any portion thereof was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
In Williams v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Breen gave the prisoner one opportunity to amend after screening his complaint and warned that a missed deadline would lead to dismissal and judgment.
“The Court grants Plaintiff only one opportunity to amend his claims. If he fails to amend his complaint in a timely manner, the Court will dismiss this case and enter judgment.”
In Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. 50 North Front Street TN, LLC, Judge Breen certified the unsettled independent duty rule question to the Tennessee Supreme Court and stayed the consolidated cases.
“Therefore, the undersigned finds it prudent to CERTIFY to the state's highest court the following question of state law: Does the independent duty rule apply in Tennessee?”
He treats a motion to compel (or to stop) arbitration as a dispositive matter requiring de novo review of a magistrate's order, reasoning that ordering or halting arbitration is functionally a request for injunctive relief rather than an administrative discovery-type ruling: a stricter standard of review than some other courts apply to the same motion.
“The Court agrees with those decisions from this and other circuits that have concluded a motion to compel arbitration presents a dispositive matter.”
Cautions
In Odom’s habeas case, Judge Breen dismissed the petition as time barred and rejected equitable tolling based on ignorance of the filing deadline.
“Ignorance of the law is insufficient to warrant equitable tolling.”
On a second compassionate-release motion he holds the defendant strictly to the burden of showing a medical condition 'substantially diminishes' self-care ability, not merely that a serious diagnosis (here, Parkinson's disease) exists; evidence the defendant can still perform physical activities undercuts the showing.
“Because he has failed to present any evidence to the Court that his health issues rise to the level of those described in the § 1B1.13 application note, Stewart has fallen short of meeting his burden of demonstrating extraordinary and compelling reasons for § 3582(c)(1)(A) relief.”
In William Scott Howard v. Jackson Police Department, Judge Breen treated a late reconsideration motion under Rule 60(b)(6) and denied it because the plaintiff’s unrelated period of incarceration did not establish extraordinary circumstances.
“Howard's motion offers nothing that is extraordinary or exceptional. Rather, it appears to seek another bite at the apple, which motions to reconsider are not designed to provide.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Defendants' motions to dismiss and to strike be DENIED”
“the motions of the Plaintiffs for an extension of the deadline for taking expert witness depositions and to respond to discovery be GRANTED”
“the motion for a new scheduling order be GRANTED”
“For the reasons articulated herein, the motion to suppress is DENIED.”
“the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a disparate impact claim under the ADEA. Therefore, their second motion for partial summary judgment as to that claim must be DENIED.”
“GRANTED and this matter is dismissed in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for the Defendant.”
“Crider's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation and intimate association claims and her claims arising under the right to travel, right to freedom of movement, and right to access is GRANTED.”
“his motion to dismiss Plaintiff's freedom-of-assembly claim is GRANTED.”
“The Court GRANTS Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred. The petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and judgment shall be entered for Respondent.”
“The latter motion is GRANTED, and the Court will consider the record as supplemented.”
“Because he has failed to present any evidence to the Court that his health issues rise to the level of those described in the § 1B1.13 application note, Stewart has fallen short of meeting his burden of demonstrating extraordinary and compelling reasons for § 3582(c)(1)(A) relief. ... Accordingly, his request on reconsideration is DENIED.”
“Based on the foregoing, Defendant's sentence is hereby REDUCED to TIME SERVED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. Counts I and II of the complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“the motion of Defendants CoreCivic, Neal, and Pruitt, to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment.”
“Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety for the reasons discussed in the Screening Order.”
“the Court hereby enters judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure reversing the decision of the ALJ and remanding this case to the Commissioner under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 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 United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, not for Judge Breen: 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 | 893 | 8.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 381 | 8.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 489 | 8.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 25.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 13 | 26.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 893 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 737 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 755 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 782 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 792 | 10 months |
| Sep 2020 | 766 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 780 | 9.7 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 Breen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Breen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Breen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace