Carlos F. Lucero
How Judge Lucero rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lucero
Carlos F. Lucero is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Lucero received a commission on June 30, 1995. Judge Lucero assumed senior status on February 1, 2021.
Judge Lucero's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Lucero's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 11, 2026).
How Judge Lucero decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hain v. Mullin, he read § 848(q) as unambiguous and applied its stated terms.
“Section 848(q) employs clear and precise language, admitting of no ambiguity and leaving no room for interpretation.”
In Kitchen v. Herbert, he held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry and establish a family.
“We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state's marital laws.”
Procedural preferences
In Blue Valley Hospital v. Azar, he rejected an attempt to bypass Medicare’s administrative review route by framing the hospital’s claims as constitutional.
“BVH may not avoid the administrative channeling provisions of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and (h) merely by couching its claims in constitutional terms.”
In United States v. Begay, he explained that a panel remained bound by earlier circuit decisions absent en banc review or a contrary Supreme Court ruling.
“We cannot overrule the judgment of another panel of this court. We are bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court.”
Cautions
In an excessive-force appeal, he held that officers violated clearly established law by continuing to taser Perea after he was subdued, and affirmed the denial of qualified immunity.
“the officers' repeated tasering of Perea after he was subdued constituted excessive force, and that it was clearly established at the time of the taserings that such conduct was unconstitutional.”
In Bailey v. Independent School District No. 69, he held that speech about criminal sentencing proceedings addressed a matter of public concern.
“sentencing proceedings are at the core of the public administration of justice, and are therefore quintessentially matters of public concern.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of BVH's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS the appeal as to factual challenges, and otherwise AFFIRM the district court's order.”
“we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings.”
“We reverse the district court's grant of the motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings.”
“we reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings.”
Draft for Judge Lucero with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lucero, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lucero's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace