The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals released several opinions with Colorado ties. Read the summary or the entire opinion, below.
Dumitrascu v. Dumitrascu / Dumitrascu v. Dumitrascu, Nos. 25-1330 & 25-1432 (10th Cir. Aug. 24, 2026). The 10th Circuit issued two related decisions arising from a long-running international child custody dispute between Alin and Violeta Dumitrascu. The dispute began in 2021 when Violeta filed a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, alleging that Alin wrongfully retained their minor child in the United States. The district court determined that the child’s habitual residence was Romania and ordered the child’s return there for Romanian courts to resolve custody issues. The 10th Circuit affirmed that decision in 2022.
In No. 25-1330, Alin challenged the district court’s denial of post-judgment relief and his request for judicial recusal. He argued that Chief Judge Philip Brimmer should have recused himself based on alleged bias, including the judge’s prior professional relationship with Violeta’s attorney, and he sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), alleging legal errors, misconduct and fraud during the original Hague proceedings. The 10th Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying either request. The court concluded that a judge’s prior professional relationship with an attorney, without specific evidence of bias, does not require recusal, and that adverse rulings alone do not establish judicial bias.
In No. 25-1432, Alin filed a separate federal lawsuit against Violeta and her mother, Mariana Borsan, alleging they committed fraud on the court by submitting false evidence and testimony during the Hague proceedings. He sought damages and a declaration that the defendants were responsible for abducting a minor and committing fraud. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and the 10th Circuit affirmed. The appellate court concluded that the lawsuit was effectively an improper collateral attack on the original Hague judgment rather than an independent action. The court explained that claims alleging fraud in a prior judgment should generally be raised before the court that issued that judgment through an appropriate post-judgment mechanism, such as Rule 60(b), rather than through a new lawsuit.
Together, the decisions reinforce the limits on using post-judgment motions and separate lawsuits to revisit prior federal judgments. The 10th Circuit held that Alin could not use either a recusal motion, Rule 60(b) relief, or a new civil action to relitigate issues arising from the original Hague Convention proceedings. The court affirmed both district court decisions, leaving the original international custody ruling intact and directing any further challenges to proceed through the appropriate remedies in the original Hague proceeding. Read opinion 25-1330. Read opinion 25-1432.
United States v. Matthew Scott Rose, No. 25-1443. The 10th Circuit affirmed the denial of Matthew Scott Rose’s request for a sentence reduction based on allegedly inadequate medical care while incarcerated. Rose was serving a 70-month sentence after being convicted of two counts of accessing a computer to obtain value through fraud. The district court denied his motion for compassionate release on two independent grounds: his medical circumstances did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, and the statutory sentencing factors — including the seriousness of his offenses, his characteristics and the need for general deterrence — weighed against reducing his sentence.
On appeal, Rose challenged the district court’s conclusion concerning extraordinary and compelling circumstances but did not challenge its separate reliance on the sentencing factors. The 10th Circuit held that because the sentencing factors independently supported denial of the motion, Rose’s failure to challenge that rationale required affirmance. The court also rejected Rose’s due process argument that he had not received the government’s response and therefore could not file a reply brief. Rose said the reply would have addressed whether extraordinary and compelling circumstances existed, but not the sentencing factors, so the court concluded he could not demonstrate prejudice. Read the opinion.
United States v. Jamal Lorence Dawson, No. 25-1096. The 10th Circuit affirmed the 60-month prison sentence imposed on Jamal Lorence Dawson following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Dawson challenged the district court’s addition of criminal-history points for two juvenile sentences, arguing the government had not established that he remained confined on those sentences within five years of his February 2024 federal offense, as required by the Sentencing Guidelines. Although records did not identify the precise discharge dates, the district court found the government had established by a preponderance of the evidence that Dawson was still serving the relevant juvenile sentences after the February 2019 cutoff. The resulting calculation produced an advisory Guidelines range of 84 to 105 months, from which the court varied downward to 60 months. Read the opinion.
The appeals court concluded that the district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Among other evidence, an August 2019 Colorado juvenile-court order directed Dawson’s later sentences to run consecutively to the earlier sentences, supporting an inference that the earlier sentences had not yet been discharged. Dawson’s periods of escape from state custody and the sequence of his juvenile sentences provided additional support. The panel declined to consider Dawson’s separate argument that the district court improperly relied on juvenile docket sheets because he had not raised that objection below and failed to argue plain error on appeal. The government was not required to establish Dawson’s exact discharge dates, the court emphasized; it needed only to establish that it was more likely than not that he remained confined on the relevant sentences at the required time.
Miguel Antonio Garcia v. Raymond P. Moore and Mike Johnston, No. 25-1415. The 10th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit brought by federal inmate Miguel Antonio Garcia against U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston. Garcia, proceeding without an attorney, sought declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief. A jury previously convicted him of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. He was sentenced to 280 months in prison and five years of supervised release. The district court dismissed Garcia’s subsequent civil action without prejudice under Heck v. Humphrey, which generally prevents a plaintiff from pursuing a civil claim that would necessarily imply the invalidity of an outstanding criminal conviction.
Garcia argued on appeal that his conviction or sentence had been invalidated, but the 10th Circuit found nothing supporting that assertion. He did not directly appeal his conviction, and his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 had been denied. Because his conviction had never been reversed, expunged, declared invalid or otherwise called into question through federal post-conviction proceedings, the panel concluded that his claims could not proceed. Garcia also invoked the Alien Enemies Act, federal immigration law and a 2025 executive order concerning immigration, but the court held that none demonstrated that his conviction or sentence was invalid. Read the opinion.
Dianna Grace Reuter v. San Juan Mountains Credit Union, et al., Nos. 25-1442, 26-1022 & 26-1181. The 10th Circuit affirmed three District of Colorado decisions involving pro se litigant Dianna Grace Reuter, who is subject to filing restrictions requiring her to obtain court permission before initiating new cases without an attorney. In one case, Reuter sought to sue San Juan Mountains Credit Union under several constitutional provisions and federal statutes; in another, she brought constitutional claims against Silverjack Homeowners Association. The district court denied permission to file both complaints after finding the allegations incoherent, nonsensical and legally frivolous. A third case arose after Reuter submitted a document labeled a “Notice of Removal” apparently related to a Colorado state-court foreclosure proceeding. The district court opened a new action but dismissed it because Reuter had not sought the permission required by her filing restrictions.
The 10th Circuit found no basis to disturb any of the three rulings. In the first two appeals, Reuter did not present a coherent legal argument explaining why the district court erred in finding her proposed complaints frivolous; simply asserting that the rulings were unlawful or violated her rights was insufficient. In the third, the panel rejected her contention that the district court should have treated her removal notice as a filing in an earlier federal case or pending appeal, noting that she cited no authority permitting removal of a state foreclosure action into a terminated federal case or federal appeal. Because she also failed to address the district court’s actual reason for dismissal — her failure to comply with the existing filing restrictions — the panel affirmed all three judgments. Read the opinion.