Colorado’s federal trial judges collectively had 71 motions in civil cases that had been sitting on their dockets for at least six months without a ruling as of March 31, according to recently released data from the judiciary.

However, the reported information contains discrepancies, and at least one judge’s list understates his number of pending motions.

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 requires public reporting of motions awaiting action in civil matters assigned to each district judge and magistrate judge. Twice a year, on March 31 and Sept. 30, a report is generated of all motions pending for six months or longer. Under the reporting protocols, a motion becomes “pending” 30 days after its filing.

The latest report is in line with the backlogs registered in the prior two reporting periods. The number remains a vast improvement from March 2023, when 272 motions appeared on the six-month lists for Colorado’s judges.

The largest delays in deciding motions came from the district judge bench, with Judge S. Kato Crews having 18 outstanding motions on his public list. Semi-retired Senior Judges John L. Kane and William J. Martínez each had 15 motions and Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore had 11 motions pending for longer than six months.

When enacting the Civil Justice Reform Act, then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., incorporated a provision requiring the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to release a public list of each trial judge’s pending motions semi-annually. The law’s goal was to increase accountability for federal judges and ensure backlogged cases were moving forward.

Judges also have the opportunity to give a reason for the delay, such as “complexity of case,” “extensive discovery involved” or “voluminous” materials. The act does not apply to criminal cases, which have their own legal deadlines. 

The motions on the six-month list range from dismissal and summary judgment requests, which can potentially end a case without a trial, to evidentiary and procedural matters.

Extreme delays for half of motions

Although some motions were overdue by a matter of days or weeks — and a handful were decided shortly after the Civil Justice Reform Act reporting window — 38 motions have been awaiting action for 100 days or longer after the six-month deadline. In other words, they have been sitting for roughly a year or more without a decision.

Some of the delays are more explainable than others.

In a patent case filed in 2017, three motions had been pending for 318 days beyond the deadline as of March 31. The parties spent some of that time pursuing mediation, which was ultimately unsuccessful. One month before the end of the reporting window, Martínez, the judge assigned to the case, informed the parties he “cannot resolve” the motions until they decided what to do about an expert witness who was no longer able to testify.

Although Martínez still has not acted on the motions for summary judgment that were filed on the same day in October 2023, there has been a flurry of activity in recent months about the expert witness. Consequently, he issued an order last week giving the parties additional time to file documents related to the two-year-old summary judgment motions.

Other delays, however, are more opaque — or have given rise to questionable reporting data.

Inconsistencies

According to the March 31 Civil Justice Reform Act list, the two motions that have been stalled the longest are in a constitutional rights case brought by a plaintiff who Denver detectives allegedly coerced into confessing to a high-profile murder when he was a teenager.

On July 20, 2023, one individual defendant and Denver itself moved to end the lawsuit in their favor without a trial. The plaintiff’s response and the defendants’ replies were all filed before November 2023.

Kane, the judge assigned to the case, has yet to decide the motions.

They first appeared on Kane’s six-month list for March 2024. He justified the delay by noting there were “voluminous briefs” and that he gave the parties “additional time to file supplemental briefs.” For the September 2024 report, “supplemental briefs” was again coded as a justification.

The docket does not show Kane ever directed the parties to file supplemental briefs for those motions, nor that they did file any.

In the latest report, Kane indicated there was a “decision in draft.” Almost four months after the reporting period, there is still no decision.

Kane, in an email to Colorado Politics, said he has “no direct participation in collecting or recording Civil Justice Reform Act data.” He noted there were actually five undecided motions for summary judgment in the case — all filed in July 2023 — and not just the two that appear on his six-month list. Those unrecorded motions bring the length of his list to 18, up from the 15 displayed in the data tables.

“The rulings on the five pending motions for summary judgment are in draft form and await resolution of the matters related to the death of (one) defendant detective” in January, said Kane.

In a civil rights case assigned to Moore, one of the defendants — the city of Fort Collins — filed a motion to dismiss in October 2023. The response and reply were filed by the end of the year, but Moore took no action.

Then in April 2025, Fort Collins filed a motion for summary judgment, which typically happens after the lengthy process of exchanging evidence is complete. In a footnote, the city reminded Moore its motion to dismiss from 1.5 years earlier had never been decided.

The motion first appeared on Moore’s six-month list for September 2024. As a justification for the delay, Moore wrote that he had referred the motion to a magistrate judge. He reiterated that code for the March 2025 report.

The docket does not reflect Moore ever directed a magistrate judge to handle the motion.

Through the district court’s clerk, Colorado Politics asked Moore whether the public docket failed to register his referral to a magistrate judge or if he had simply coded his list incorrectly.

“Judge Moore has advised that an order will issue in due course,” responded Chief Deputy Clerk Nichole C. Milton.