A federal judge on Wednesday directed Colorado’s former judicial discipline director, for the third time this year, to explain why she should not sanction him for his latest conduct in his litigation against the state’s judiciary.

Christopher S.P. Gregory, who served as the executive director of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline between 2022 and 2024, raised claims of conspiracy and constitutional violations against the Colorado Supreme Court, numerous judges and attorneys involved in the judicial discipline process, plus the governor and attorney general. He sought reinstatement to his former position, monetary damages, and the complete overhaul of multiple state judicial entities.

Last month, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Kathryn H. Vratil dismissed Gregory’s lawsuit, finding he failed to adequately state claims under federal law.

After Gregory sought to vacate her decision and, in the process, publicly filed multiple documents that he was required to place under restricted view, Vratil gave Gregory roughly 48 hours to explain why he should not be held in contempt and sanctioned for violating the filing requirement.

The Sept. 9 order was the third time Vratil mulled sanctions against Gregory since March.

Vratil, of Kansas, was assigned to Gregory’s case earlier this year under the provision of law allowing the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to enlist an out-of-state judge when it would be “in the public interest.” Four of Colorado’s U.S. District Court judges recused or otherwise declined to handle Gregory’s case, after which Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes of the 10th Circuit designated Vratil to preside.

Gregory has filed dozens of highly similar misconduct complaints against Vratil, Holmes, and other judges in the 10th Circuit, all related to his case. Recently, a 10th Circuit judge who reviewed and dismissed two of Gregory’s complaints characterized them as a “litigation tactic.”

Gregory’s lawsuit alleged 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.

The state judiciary later commissioned an investigation and a disciplinary panel of Court of Appeals judges issued an unprecedented censure of former Chief Justice Nathan B. Coats for his role in mismanaging the contract award.

Gregory further alleged that, since his termination, the judicial discipline commission has dismissed his misconduct complaints, declined to “publish (his) public comments into the record,” and obstructed his “fundamental right to be heard.”

On March 18, Vratil directed Gregory to explain why she should not sanction him for violating the federal rule prohibiting improper or frivolous representations, after he allegedly mischaracterized the defendants’ actions in the case. One week later, she again asked Gregory to describe why his attempt to seek her recusal did not violate the prohibition on court filings that are made “for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the costs of litigation in this case.”

Since the dismissal of Gregory’s case on Aug. 11, Vratil has not followed up with any consequences.

However, Gregory requested on Tuesday that Vratil vacate her order because it was the product of her “personal bias and prejudice” against him. Gregory alleged that the dismissal amounted to retaliation, that Vratil was “openly hostile” toward him, and that she committed federal crimes.

“Because Judge Vratil knowingly and willfully concealed being directly assigned to Plaintiff’s cases by Chief Judge Holmes (over Plaintiff’s express objections), probable cause exists to suspect that Judge Vratil has violated” the criminal prohibition on false statements, Gregory wrote.

In reality, Holmes’ assignment of the case to Vratil was publicly disclosed on the docket at the time.

The state defendants quickly filed a motion to restrict Gregory’s 1,650-page packet of exhibits from public view. They pointed to Vratil’s previous ruling that future filings in which Gregory mentions a state or federal judge must be restricted pending further review for relevance and confidential information.

“At some point, Plaintiff’s repeated public filings of papers that he knows contain confidential information must be put to a stop,” wrote the Colorado Attorney General’s Office. “This Court should hold Plaintiff in civil contempt for violating the Restriction Order to prevent Plaintiff from further wasting both the Court’s and Defendants’ resources in correcting Plaintiff’s violations of Court orders and his own obligations to the (judicial discipline) Commission.”

Vratil quickly placed the exhibits with potentially confidential information under restriction and gave Gregory until the end of Friday to address whether she should hold him in contempt or sanction him.

The case is Gregory v. The Colorado Judicial Discipline Rulemaking Committee et al.