Hickey v. Donahoe

Filing 29

ORDER denying 25 Motion to Compel; denying 26 Motion to Consolidate Cases by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/8/13.(bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01054-CMA-BNB
LYNDA S. HICKEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the following motions filed by the plaintiff on July 26, 2013:
(1) Motion to Compel the Court’s Ruling [Doc. #25] (the “Motion to Compel
Ruling”); and
(2) Motion to Consolidate Cases [Doc. #26] (the “Motion to Consolidate”).
The Motions are DENIED.
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. Therefore, I must liberally construe her
pleadings. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). I cannot act as advocate for a pro se
litigant, however, who must comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
The plaintiff seeks to compel the court to “rule on the Plaintiff’s previously entered
Motion(s) to Consolidate EEOC Findings and Appoint Attorney Per EEOC Findings submitted
on 11 Jun 13.” My review of the record does not reveal any such motion(s) pending. The
Motion to Compel Ruling is denied.

The plaintiff also seeks to consolidate this case with an “open and active District of
Columbia Federal District Court case . . . because they are both against the same Defendant and
assert the identical issues . . . .” Rule 42(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., permits a district judge to order
consolidation of cases pending before the court that involve a common question of law or fact.
There is only one case pending before this court. Therefore, it is not possible for the court to
consolidate this action with any other action. Sharp v. Wellmark, Inc., No. 10-CV-2430-SAC,
2010 WL 4291644 at *3 n.7 (D.Kan. October 16, 2010) (stating that the court was without power
to consolidate cases in another jurisdiction); Williams v. City of New York, No. 03 Civ. 5342
(RWS), 2006 WL 399456 at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. February 21, 2006) (denying motion to
consolidate with case pending in another district because case in other district was not “pending
before the court”). The Motion to Consolidate is denied.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel the Court’s Ruling [Doc. #25] and the
Motion to Consolidate Cases [Doc. #26] are DENIED.
Dated August 8, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2