Shane Kato Crews
How Judge Crews rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Crews
S. Kato Crews is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Crews received a commission on January 12, 2024.
Judge Crews's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Crews, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Standing Order for Civil Cases ↗
- Standing Order for Criminal Cases ↗
- Uniform Civil Practice Standards ↗
Key rules
Filing
Include a certification about generative AI use in every substantive motion, response, and reply.
“every substantive motion—including, but not necessarily limited to, motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, 56, and 65—and the corresponding response and reply, shall contain an AI Certification”
Motions
Confer before motions to dismiss and summary judgment motions, and describe substantive conferral efforts when opposed.
“This includes motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. The duty to meet and confer requires the parties to discuss the specific dispute at issue and the requested relief”
Motions
For summary judgment, confer and jointly email chambers for a pre-motion conference within ten days after discovery closes.
“No later than 10 days after the close of discovery, a party intending to file a motion for summary judgment must meaningfully confer with the opposing party and jointly contact chambers by email to set a pre-motion status conference”
Motions
In criminal cases, motions and responses are limited to fifteen pages, and replies to ten.
“All motions, objections, responses, and briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages. Replies shall not exceed ten pages.”
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Crews decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Controlling precedent ends the inquiry. Where a binding Supreme Court case is directly on point, Crews applies it without entertaining arguments to anticipate its reversal: stare decisis is dispositive even when the plaintiff frames it as the court's discretion.
“In the hierarchy that is the federal court system, and under the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court is required to 'follow the case which directly controls.'”
Procedural preferences
In Johnson’s pro se case, he construed the plaintiffs’ filings liberally while declining to act as their advocate.
“Plaintiffs are all pro se, and therefore, the Court liberally construes their filings but without acting as their advocate.”
In a 2024 civil case, after two show-cause orders and returned mail, he dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denied the defendants' motions as moot.
“the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute her case.”
In Ramírez-Francisco’s detention case, he ordered immediate release because the government offered no lawful basis for custody.
“Because Respondents have offered no lawful basis for his detention, the Court concludes Mr. Ramírez-Francisco is entitled to immediate release.”
Cautions
In Robinson’s case, he found a bare invocation of the First Amendment too general to overcome qualified immunity.
“a right cannot be defined at an unacceptably high level of generality, and merely citing to the First Amendment is as general as it gets. Overcoming qualified immunity requires more.”
When related corporate defendants and alternative liability theories are involved, identify which entity committed each alleged act and state the legal theory connecting the parent to the subsidiary; grouped allegations can be dismissed under Rule 8.
“Plaintiff may not simply lump the Defendants, allegations, and various unspecified legal theories together, hoping the Court will demand clarity later. The time for clarity is now.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons shared above, the MOTION TO DISMISS is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that the dismissals ordered herein shall be without prejudice.”
“The Court FURTHER DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Change Venue, Dkt. 15, as MOOT.”
“Defendant El Paso County, L. Stengle and R. Snipe's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 8(a), 12(b)(1) and (6) (Dkt. 26), and Defendant Wellpath's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 27), are all DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the Court respectfully DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 101) and GRANTS Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkts. 99, 100, 102).”
“the Court respectfully DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 101)”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 50) is GRANTED. ... Because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant Noble Energy, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Mike Boulter and Boulter, LLC's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“For the reasons shared above, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 46. Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the Colorado Consumer Protection Act is dismissed with prejudice and the remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice. Within 14 days of this Order, Plaintiff is given leave to file a second amended pleading that complied with Rule 8 and addresses the deficiencies discussed above.”
“For the reasons shared above, Pedro Trejo Trejo’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons shared above, Alfredo Ramírez-Francisco’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED and the Court ORDERS as follows:”
“For the reasons shared above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 91) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff’s claims against PENN are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. 3. Plaintiff’s request for ‘Determination of Trade Name Status’ is not a cognizable claim and is dismissed with prejudice. 4. Plaintiff’s claim for misappropriation of trade secrets is dismissed without prejudice.”
“ORDERED that the Amended Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 18) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For the reasons shared above, the Bankruptcy Court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment is AFFIRMED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. 18, 34, 34-1) are granted. Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The three displayed case durations mix two short magistrate-consent matters with one fully litigated district-judge case. They are examples rather than a duration distribution.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 19 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 3 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 19 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 8 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 18 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 27 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 30 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 8 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 11 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 1 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Colorado, not for Judge Crews: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 2,669 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 497 | 7.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,076 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 63 | 26.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 33 | 39.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,669 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,704 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,560 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,614 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,637 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,637 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,577 | 7.5 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Crews with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Crews, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Crews's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace