Federal judges across Colorado are staring down a fresh pileup of old business, with long‑pending civil motions jumping sharply as of March 31. After several months of improvement, the semiannual snapshot shows the backlog inching back up and dozens of litigants still waiting for rulings, renewing questions about how the court tracks slow‑moving matters and whether staffing tweaks can keep up with a swelling docket.
According to the federal judiciary’s Civil Justice Reform Act report, the District of Colorado had 75 motions pending more than six months as of March 31. Of those, 66 were listed for district judges and nine for magistrates' judges. The published tables show S. Kato Crews with 19 motions, Senior Judge John L. Kane with 18, and Judge Nina Y. Wang with 13. U.S. Courts includes the full judge‑by‑judge table.
The Denver Gazette reported this week that the increase came with a few eyebrow‑raising data glitches, including motions still listed as pending even though cases had already closed or been transferred. In response, court clerk Jeffrey P. Colwell told the paper that, “Missing the motions and the reporting code used on the report was an administrative oversight at our end.”
The timing is no coincidence. The uptick landed just as the district’s civil caseload ballooned to more than 4,000 filings in 2025, a surge driven largely by challenges to immigration detention that have produced unusually thick stacks of briefing. Judges say that the influx has squeezed chambers’ capacity to push out rulings at the pace they would like. Colorado Politics reported the rise in filings.
Why the numbers matter
Motions on the CJRA lists include dispositive requests, such as dismissal and summary‑judgment motions, that can end a case without a trial. When those linger, plaintiffs and defendants can see their rights, costs, and leverage shift while they wait. The semiannual report exists precisely to spotlight those bottlenecks and prod courts to move aging matters along.
The tables are a point‑in‑time snapshot, and the Administrative Office cautions that many entries are decided, transferred, or otherwise updated after the reporting date. In other words, some of those dusty‑looking motions are already off the judges’ desks, even if they are still on the spreadsheet, as per the U.S. Courts.
How judges are responding
Judges and their staff members told reporters that the longest delays usually track the hardest cases, the heaviest dockets, or ordinary sequencing decisions rather than simple neglect. Senior Judge John L. Kane, who acknowledged multiple overdue motions, said some orders were resolved in person or are “awaiting a final cite check by a law clerk,” while others were transferred or became moot after settlements. Magistrate Judge Susan Prose said several of her overdue decisions already exist in draft form, according to the Denver Gazette.
What comes next
The clerk’s office says it is scrubbing the lists, correcting erroneous entries, and updating public tables as clerks reconcile the underlying records. At the same time, lawmakers and court advocates continue to push for more judgeships and staff to absorb the rising tide of filings. Sen. John Hickenlooper has praised recent federal legislation that adds seats to Colorado’s federal bench, with Sen. Hickenlooper’s office saying the change is intended to ease caseload pressure.
For now, the CJRA snapshot suggests that most judges are keeping their dockets moving at a steady clip, yet it also shows how a relatively small cluster of slow rulings can ripple outward, affecting litigants’ lives and public confidence in the system. Court officials say the numbers will shift as clerks and judges clear outstanding orders and fix the reporting codes.
