Harris L. Hartz
How Judge Hartz rules, drawn from 73 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hartz
Harris L. Hartz is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Hartz received a commission on December 10, 2001.
Judge Hartz's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hartz'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 Hartz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Sines v. Wilner, he rejected a claim that § 2255 was inadequate merely because the district court dismissed a motion the movant could have appealed.
“Mr. Sines's remedy under § 2255 was not inadequate or ineffective; he could have appealed the district court's dismissal of his motion.”
In Torres v. Madrid, he held that officers could not rely on the suspect’s later escape to justify force when they did not know she would escape at the time they fired.
“Defendants did not know Ms. Torres would escape when they shot at her, and facts unknown to officers at the moment they use force are not relevant to the qualified-immunity analysis.”
A regulation that requires or forbids the plaintiff’s own conduct almost invariably supplies injury in fact, including when a student was disciplined for violating an expired school rule.
“When a government regulation ‘require[s] or forbid[s] some action by the plaintiff,’ she ‘almost invariably’ states an injury in fact.”
A state-court plaintiff whose action is removed by defendants does not have to pay a federal filing fee or satisfy the federal in-forma-pauperis statute’s three-strikes rule.
“State-court plaintiffs whose cases are removed to federal court have no obligation to pay a filing fee; nothing in the federal IFP statute is to the contrary.”
State-law claims targeting wholesale interstate natural-gas sales during Winter Storm Uri were displaced by the field reserved to exclusive federal regulation.
“We AFFIRM the district court. Plaintiffs’ claims are field-preempted.”
Procedural preferences
In Fernandez v. Clean House, he held that a plaintiff did not have to anticipate and negate a limitations defense in the complaint.
“A plaintiff need not anticipate in the complaint an affirmative defense that may be raised by the defendant; it is the defendant's burden to plead an affirmative defense.”
In Slinkard, the court held that announcing a definitive sentence before the defendant spoke violated the right to allocution and remanded for resentencing.
“We hold that the court’s pre-allocution statement was a definitive announcement of sentence, in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) and our precedent.”
In a pro se civil-rights appeal, he reversed dismissal because the district court treated an allegation in the warden’s answer as true and assumed undated allegations in the complaint predated its one dated incident.
“The court below improperly assumed (1) that an allegation in the answer to the complaint was true and (2) that undated incidents alleged in the complaint must have preceded the incident for which the complaint alleged a specific date.”
Equitable estoppel cannot expand an arbitration clause beyond the disputes and parties its contractual language covers, even when nonsignatories invoke state-law enforcement theories.
“equitable estoppel cannot be invoked to expand the scope of the arbitration clause in the PSAs.”
An agency could not reject an electronic notice of appeal for a separate proof-of-service signature when the governing form made that signature inapplicable to electronic service.
“We conclude that Petitioners are correct on the signature-requirement issue because the BIA’s holding was wrong as a matter of law.”
Treats state action as a merits element, not a federal-question jurisdictional prerequisite, when a civil-rights complaint invokes the general federal-question statute.
“Thus, when a § 1983 complaint asserts jurisdiction under § 1331, with or without § 1343(a)(3), the case ‘arises under’ federal law and proof of deprivation ‘under color of’ state law is not necessary for subject matter jurisdiction.”
Recognizes a trial court's pretrial authority to reconsider and set aside its own interlocutory suppression ruling before final judgment.
“we can limit our holding to recognizing the district court’s authority during pretrial proceedings to reconsider and set aside a prior ruling suppressing evidence.”
Cautions
In Abbasid v. First National Bank of Santa Fe, he affirmed denial of a new-trial motion on a ground the appellant had not challenged in its briefs.
“We ordinarily do not address issues not raised in the briefs ... and we see no reason to do so here. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Abbasid's motion for a new trial on the unchallenged ground relied on by the district court.”
In an appeal of a $1,000 criminal fine, he held that Sanchez-Urias had not shown inability to pay after withholding financial information from the probation office, and affirmed the fine.
“Defendant bore the burden to show that he lacked the assets to pay the fine.”
Treats questions about a widely publicized accusation as a reason to investigate rather than a basis for ignoring inquiry notice.
“But such reliability questions are not an excuse for ignoring the report, they are a call to action.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, we conclude that Mr. Springfield has failed to make ‘a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,’ 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and therefore DENY his request for a COA. We also DENY his request to proceed IFP.”
“With respect to Mr. Davis’s claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254, dismissal was undoubtedly correct and we DENY a COA. With respect to his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, we AFFIRM the judgment below.”
“Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court's revocation of Mr. Crisler's probation and remand with instructions to end his supervised release forthwith.”
“there is no basis to reverse the district court's denial of his motion to set aside his voluntary dismissal... We AFFIRM the order of the district court.”
“We conclude that MCC is entitled to intervene as of right, and accordingly we REVERSE the district court's decision and REMAND with instructions to grant MCC's motion to intervene.”
“We hold that the plan's limitations period is enforceable and therefore affirm the summary judgment in favor of Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company.”
“We reverse and remand. The court below improperly assumed (1) that an allegation in the answer to the complaint was true and (2) that undated incidents alleged in the complaint must have preceded the incident for which the complaint alleged a specific date.”
“Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the dismissal by the district court. Mr. Sines's remedy under § 2255 was not inadequate or ineffective; he could have appealed the district court's dismissal of his motion.”
“Those two holdings are not at issue on appeal. What Plaintiffs are challenging is the district court's failure to give them the relief to which they claim entitlement based on those holdings... The district court disagreed with those contentions, and so do we.”
“The dispositive legal issue in this appeal has been resolved by this court's opinion in United States v. Dawes... We REVERSE the judgment of the bankruptcy court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.”
Draft for Judge Hartz with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hartz, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hartz's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace