Hickey v. Donahoe

Filing 37

ORDER: Motion to Consolidate EEOC Findings [Doc. # 31 ] is DENIED. The Corrected Motion to Compel the Court's Ruling [Doc. # 32 ] is DENIED. The Motion to Appoint Attorney Per EEOC Findings [Doc. # 33 ] is DENIED. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/4/2013.(klyon, )

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 on August 16, 2013:
(1) Motion to Consolidate EEOC Findings [Doc. #31] (the “Motion to Consolidate”);
(2) Corrected Motion to Compel the Court’s Ruling [Doc. #32] (the “Corrected
Motion to Compel”); and
(3) Motion to Appoint Attorney Per EEOC Findings [Doc. #33] (the “Motion to
Appoint Attorney”).
The Motions are DENIED.
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. 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).

Motion to Consolidate
The Motion to Consolidate consists of the following paragraph:
Comes now . . . Plaintiff in this action to move the court to
consolidate the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s
(EEOC’s) findings regarding the breech [sic] of contact allegations
attached as Exhibit X to the Title VII Complaint in this action
dated 26 Apr 13. Specifically, the Plaintiff moves to consolidate
the EEOC findings on appeal dated 15 May 13 identified as
Hickey v. Donahoe Appeal No. 0120131157, Agency No. 4E-8000108012 and Appeal No. 0120121281, Agency No. 4E-800-011005 for their relevance to this action and move to incorporate them
in their entirety into the Title VII Complaint and attach them
thereto as Exhibit X, pages 9 to 21 citing the EEOC declaration
therein to my right to pursue their adjudication in Federal District
Court.
It appears that the plaintiff is attempting to amend her Complaint, but the nature of the
amendment is unclear. The plaintiff did not attach the EEOC findings to the Motion to
Consolidate, and I do not find them in the record.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a request for a court order must “state
with particularity the grounds for seeking the order” and must “state the relief sought.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B) and (C). The Motion to Consolidate is incomprehensible and fails to specify
either any grounds for relief or the precise nature of the relief sought. Accordingly, the Motion

to Consolidate is denied.
Corrected Motion to Compel
I previously denied the plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel the Court’s Ruling” [Doc. #25]. I
stated:
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.”

2

My review of the record does not reveal any such motion(s)
pending. The Motion to Compel Ruling is denied.
Order Issued August 8, 2013 [Doc. #29].
In her Corrected Motion to Compel, the plaintiff argues that the court is in receipt of the
motions. I have issued a ruling on the matter. The Corrected Motion to Compel is denied.
Motion to Appoint Attorney
The plaintiff also seeks appointment of counsel to assist her in this case. She filed a
motion to appoint counsel on May 14, 2013 [Doc. #12], which I denied [Doc. #18]; and she filed
a motion to reconsider my order [Doc. #19] which I also denied [Doc. #21]. Her current motion
contains duplicate pages from her previous motions. The plaintiff’s request for appointment of
counsel has been denied, and she may not file redundant motions.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The Motion to Consolidate EEOC Findings [Doc. #31] is DENIED;
(2) The Corrected Motion to Compel the Court’s Ruling [Doc. #32] is DENIED;
(3) The Motion to Appoint Attorney Per EEOC Findings [Doc. #33] is DENIED;
(4) In the future, all requests for a court order shall comply with Rule 7;
(5) The plaintiff shall cease filing redundant motions; and
(6) Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions, including dismissal of this
case with prejudice.
Dated November 4, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3