Jennings v. Lee

Filing 19

ORDER. ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate 15 is DENIED. ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Compile 16 is DENIED. ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Compel 17 is DENIED. ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Compel 18 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 04/04/16.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01263-PAB
JAMES E. JENNINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHELE K. LEE, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, and
DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate [Docket No.
15], Motion to Compile [Docket No. 16], and Motions to Compel [Docket Nos. 17 and
18]. In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court construes his filings liberally. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 & n.3 (10th Cir.
1991).
In all four motions, plaintiff asks the Court to consolidate this case with two
others, Jennings v. Lee, 15-cv-01248-PAB, and Jennings v. Lee, 15-cv-01914-LTB,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Docket No. 15 at 2; Docket No. 16 at 2; Docket No.
17 at 2; Docket No. 18 at 2. Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures
provides that “[i]f actions before the court involve common questions of law or fact, the
court may . . . consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2).
On September 14, 2015, the Court dismissed this case, Docket No. 11 at 2, and
on September 18, 2015, final judgment entered for defendants. Docket No. 12. This

case is closed. Therefore, this case is not properly considered a pending case for
purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate [Docket No. 15] is DENIED. It is
further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Compile [Docket No. 16] is DENIED. It is
further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Docket No. 17] is DENIED. It is
further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Docket No. 18] is DENIED.

DATED April 4, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

2