The administrative body for the Denver-based federal appeals court upheld a finding last week that misconduct complaints against Colorado’s chief federal trial judge and the chief appeals judge warranted dismissal and appeared to be a “litigation tactic” by the complaining party.

The Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit concluded in a brief July 22 order that Judge Harris L Hartz was correct to find attorney Christopher S.P. Gregory’s allegations fell short of establishing judicial misconduct.

“Complainant disregards one very important factor — namely that allegations are not true simply because he says they are,” Hartz wrote in a March 30 order that the 10th Circuit posted to its website this week. “Complainant must support his allegations with sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred.”

Gregory, the former director of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, is suing the state Supreme Court, the discipline commission, the disciplinary rulemaking committee and others. Generally, he alleges a conspiracy related to the 2019 decision to award a multimillion-dollar contract to a Colorado judicial employee who was herself facing misconduct allegations.

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

Ordinarily, misconduct proceedings against federal judges provide anonymity to the complaining party and the subject judge. However, Gregory publicly disclosed his complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico in his court filings.

Domenico briefly handled Gregory’s lawsuit, but recused himself in February out of “an abundance of caution,” reasoning that some of Gregory’s allegations could implicate Domenico’s own state employment before he took the bench in 2019.

Prior to his recusal, Domenico had dismissed a similar case of Gregory’s that was sealed from public view, which prompted Gregory to file a misconduct complaint against Domenico with Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes of 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.

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.

“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 then filed more complaints against Domenico and Holmes. He also provided Colorado Politics with two dozen complaints he filed against various judges within the six-state region covered by the 10th Circuit. Broadly, he alleged that Holmes’ presentation of an award to one of Colorado’s Supreme Court justices during a 2024 conference and the judiciary’s unwillingness to assign his litigation to a judge outside of the 10th Circuit gave rise to misconduct.

Hartz, the next-most senior judge after Holmes, handled Gregory’s new complaints against Domenico and Holmes. He noted that Gregory’s allegations once again revolved around Domenico’s allegedly improper failures to immediately recuse from Gregory’s cases, as well as Holmes’ allegedly improper failure to recuse from handling the initial Domenico complaint.

Hartz concluded Gregory’s allegations either did not demonstrate impropriety or amounted to disagreements with rulings, which are not ordinarily grounds for misconduct.

“To the extent Complainant believes filing numerous and repetitive, misconduct complaints will force the recusal of judges he does not prefer in favor of those he hopes will be more sympathetic to his case,” Hartz added, “the filing of a misconduct complaint that has not been deemed meritorious is not, in itself, cause for recusal.”

He also warned Gregory that he would hold off on resolving any future complaints from Gregory related to his civil cases until they conclude, “as Complainant appears intent on filing numerous and largely similar complaints against judges who are addressing his civil matters in the very early stages of litigation, in what appears to be a litigation tactic,” Hartz wrote.

Gregory sought review of Hartz’s decision from the 10th Circuit Judicial Council, which consists of circuit and trial judges. He argued Hartz had mischaracterized his complaints as “simply my disagreeing with Judge Domenico and Judge Holmes’s non-disqualification decisions.” Instead, both judges allegedly “used their respective assignments to achieve outcomes based upon personal bias or prejudice,” and Hartz was “enabling the misconduct of other judges and attorneys.”

The Judicial Council upheld Hartz’s order.