Cooper v. Webster et al

Filing 6

ORDER that the following actions are consolidated, and future filings in any of the following actions shall be docketed under the above referenced No. 08- cv-01599-CMA-KMT: (1) 08-cv-01599-CMA-KMT; (2) 08-cv-02536-CMA-KMT; (3) 09-cv- 00662-CMA-KMT; ( 4) 09-cv-00667-CMA-KMT; (5) 09-cv-00754-CMA; and (6) 09-cv- 00961-CMA. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Cooper shall file an amended complaint containing all of his factual allegations and causes of action against all proper defendants in the above-listed matters within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 5/13/09. (erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 08-cv-01599-CMA-KMT (Consolidated with 08-cv-02536-CMA-KMT; 09-cv-00662-CMA-KMT; 09-cv-00667-CMA-KMT; 09-cv-00754-CMA; and 09-cv-00961-CMA) DANA COOPER, Plaintiff, v. SGT. RHONDA BELCHER, LT. BERNADETTE SCOTT, SGT. DODGE, and ASSOCIATE WARDEN CAROL SOARES, Defendant. ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the Court finds that the actions listed below involve common questions of law or fact, including common parties and claims. The Court also finds that consolidation of these cases will avoid unnecessary costs and delays. Accordingly, the Court will consolidate the matters for further handling. Further, the Court believes that a single, "master" complaint will greatly simplify case management and expedite resolution of these matters. Accordingly, Mr. Cooper shall file one amended complaint that corrals all of his factual allegations against all of the appropriate defendants into a common, operative pleading. The Court notes that the amended complaint should comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 8(a)(2).

Finally, the Court directs Mr. Cooper's attention to the following statement: A district court has the power to enjoin litigants who abuse the court system. Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1989). Groundless and vexatious litigation will justify an order enjoining a litigant from filing any claims without first seeking prior leave of court. See Ketchum v. Cruz, 961 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992); Winslow v. Romer, 759 F. Supp. 670, 677-78 (D. Colo. 1991); Colorado ex rel. Colo. Judicial Dep't v. Fleming, 726 F. Supp. 1216, 1221 (D. Colo. 1989). Injunctions are proper where the litigant's extensive and abusive litigation history properly is set forth. Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353. Cromar v. Railey, 1994 WL 724796, *3 (10th Cir. 1994). With this statement in mind, the Court cautions Mr. Cooper that failure to comply with this order and/or future unwarranted and vexatious litigious behavior may subject him to sanctions, including dismissal of his cases and restrictive conditions on future filings. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the following actions are consolidated, and future filings in any of the following actions shall be docketed under the abovereferenced No. 08-cv-01599-CMA-KMT: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 08-cv-01599-CMA-KMT; 08-cv-02536-CMA-KMT; 09-cv-00662-CMA-KMT; 09-cv-00667-CMA-KMT; 09-cv-00754-CMA; and 09-cv-00961-CMA.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Cooper shall file an amended complaint containing all of his factual allegations and causes of action against all proper defendants in the above-listed matters within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. DATED: May 13 , 2009 BY THE COURT: _______________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge

2