A judicial committee for the Denver-based federal appeals court upheld the chief judge’s finding last week that a federal judge in Colorado did not engage in misconduct by handling a civil case involving other attorneys and judges in the state.

Ordinarily, misconduct proceedings against federal judges provide anonymity to the complaining party and the subject judge. However, attorney Christopher S.P. Gregory, who was the plaintiff in two related civil lawsuits against the Colorado judiciary, publicly disclosed his complaint against U.S. District Court Judge Daniel D. Domenico in his court filings.

Domenico has since recused himself from Gregory’s one ongoing lawsuit. Although Domenico noted that the misconduct complaint itself was not grounds to step aside, he determined, out of “an abundance of caution,” that some of Gregory’s allegations could implicate Domenico’s own state employment before he took the bench in 2019.

Gregory is the former executive director of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. In October, representing himself, he filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Colorado Supreme Court, the discipline commission, the disciplinary rule-making committee, and others. Generally, he alleged a conspiracy related to the 2019 decision to award a multimillion-dollar contract to a judicial employee who was herself facing misconduct allegations.

Later reporting revealed that the employee, Mindy Masias, had catalogued alleged instances of judicial misconduct that she was prepared to disclose.

Gregory’s lawsuit is seeking his reinstatement as the judicial discipline commission’s director and the removal of those appointed to discipline, judicial performance, and judicial nominating roles.

At the time Gregory filed suit, Domenico had recently dismissed a similar case that was sealed from public view. On Aug. 4, days after the dismissal, Gregory filed a misconduct complaint against Domenico with Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

“Judge Domenico intentionally inserted himself into the underlying case to achieve an overtly biased outcome favorable to his self-identified friends,” Gregory wrote.

Gregory added that Holmes should recuse himself from the inquiry because he presented an award to Colorado Supreme Court Justice Richard L. Gabriel at the 10th Circuit’s conference the prior year.

On Sept. 22, Holmes issued an order dismissing Gregory’s complaint. He indicated he had undertaken a “limited inquiry” and asked Domenico to respond to the allegations of bias related to his connections with the judges or lawyers Gregory was suing.

“In his response, the judge notes that the ‘personal friendships’ Complainant alleges exist are, instead, professional friendships, such that if he saw one of the parties at a professional event or on the street, he would certainly greet that person, but he does not socialize on a personal level with the individuals,” wrote Holmes. “More specifically, the judge states that he has not worked with or had social interactions with any of the individuals since becoming a judge years ago.”

Holmes added that Domenico was randomly assigned the case and had not “inserted himself” into it.

“A judge’s recusal is not necessarily required merely because a judge previously knew or worked with parties to a case. And, even if a recusal was required here,” Holmes continued, “this Complainant did not support the allegation that the subject judge failed to recuse for illicit purposes with any evidence.”

Gregory sought review of Holmes’ order with the circuit’s judicial council, a body created by law that consists of other appellate and district judges.

“Chief Judge Holmes demonstrated actual bias, dishonesty, and the abuse of his position to protect Judge Domenico,” Gregory wrote.

That same day, Gregory filed a misconduct complaint against Holmes himself.

Around the same time, Gregory sought Domenico’s recusal from his still-pending lawsuit against the Colorado judicial defendants. In January, he filed a document alleging that Domenico, through his work as Colorado’s former solicitor general and an adjunct law professor, was personally connected to various participants in the alleged conspiracy over a period of decades.

In a Feb. 3 order, Domenico agreed to recuse himself from the case, while defending his professional relationships within the legal community.

“I have worked in a variety of roles in the course of my legal career: in private practice, as a law clerk at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the U.S. Department of the Interior, as the Colorado Solicitor General for nine years, as an adjunct law professor at the University of Colorado and the University of Denver, and in my current role as a U.S. District Judge for over six years,” he wrote. “Given the breadth of the allegations Mr. Gregory is making here, it is not surprising that some such individuals are defendants in this case.”

Although Domenico worked professionally with those people and considers some of them to be friends, “none of the individuals who are named as defendants or who otherwise appear to have any meaningful role in the case is someone with whom I have a close personal relationship,” Domenico added.

Despite Gregory’s complaint focusing on events that happened in 2019 or afterward, Domenico determined that Gregory’s recent filings and wider-ranging allegations “include events that took place within the Attorney General’s Office while I was a senior member of that office.” Therefore, Domenico agreed to recuse himself due to “an abundance of caution.”

U.S. District Court Judge Gordon P. Gallagher has since been assigned to the case.

Finally, on Feb. 17, the 10th Circuit’s judicial council issued a brief order upholding Holmes’ finding of no misconduct on Domenico’s part. Gregory’s complaint against Holmes is still pending.