Jennings v. Lee

Filing 24

ORDER denying 23 Motion for Relief by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 7/18/17. The plaintiff is restricted from making further filings in Case Nos. 15-cv-01248-PAB and 15-cv-01263-PAB. The plaintiff may file an objection to the Court's imposition of filing restrictions within 21 days of this order. (dkals, )

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 for Relief [Docket No. 23]. 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 his motion, 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. 23 at 4. Plaintiff has previously filed six motions
seeking similar relief.1 Docket Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21. The Court denied those
motions. Docket Nos. 19, 22.
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f actions
before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . .
1

In one of the cases plaintiff seeks to consolidate, Jennings v. Lee, 15-cv-01248PAB, plaintiff has filed four similar motions. Case No. 15-cv-01248, Docket Nos. 18,
20, 22, 25. The Court has denied those motions. Docket Nos. 21, 24, 26.

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 Septem ber 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). The
Court denied plaintiff’s six prior motions to compel on the same grounds. Docket
Nos. 19, 22. Plaintiff does not provide any reason why the Court’s prior orders were in
error.
Plaintiff’s repeated requests for the same unavailable relief, without addressing
the Court’s findings, result in a waste of judicial resources. “Federal courts have the
inherent power to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully
tailored restrictions in appropriate circumstances.” Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070,
1077 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass’n, 469 F.3d 1340, 1343 (10th
Cir. 2006); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). The Court previously
informed plaintiff that, should plaintiff continue his pattern of filing nearly-identical
requests for relief, the Court would consider whether such sanctions are appropriate.
Docket No. 22 at 2.
In light of plaintiff’s renewed request for consolidation of these dismissed actions
without addressing the Court’s prior findings or presenting new legal argument, the
Court finds that the imposition of filing sanctions in the matters before the Court is
appropriate.
Accordingly, it is

2

ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Relief [Docket No. 23] is DENIED. It is
further
ORDERED that plaintiff is restricted from making further filings in Case Nos. 15cv-01248-PAB and 15-cv-01263-PAB. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff may file an objection to the Court’s imposition of filing
restrictions within 21 days of this order.

DATED July 18, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

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

3