Shane Kato Crews
How Judge Crews rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
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
Liberally construes pro se filings but will not act as the litigant's advocate or supply missing jurisdictional facts/contacts; a concession of insufficient information is fatal.
“Plaintiffs are all pro se, and therefore, the Court liberally construes their filings but without acting as their advocate.”
Gives pro se litigants graduated process before a failure-to-prosecute dismissal (multiple OSCs, re-mailings) but enforces the local rule requiring current contact information.
“the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute her case.”
In the two recent immigration-detention decisions in this sample, the remedy turned on whether another lawful basis for custody remained: one petitioner received a prompt bond hearing, while another received immediate release after the government offered no alternative authority for detention.
“Because Respondents have offered no lawful basis for his detention, the Court concludes Mr. Ramírez-Francisco is entitled to immediate release.”
Cautions
To overcome qualified immunity at the pleading stage, identify on-point Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent: generic invocation of a constitutional right will not do.
“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.”
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.
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