Opinion
08-cv-30-bbc, 08-cv-31-bbc, 08-cv-32-bbc, 08-cv-33-bbc, 08-cv-34-bbc.
June 12, 2008
MEMORANDUM
Despite the fact that these cases were separated into individual lawsuits pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 20, that some of them are now closed, and that the remaining active cases are proceeding at different paces, plaintiff persists in treating his separate actions as though they are consolidated. In particular, he continues to file documents bearing the captions of all five cases and requesting a variety of court actions related to one or more but not all of the cases listed. This must stop.
As I explained to plaintiff in this court's December 27, 2007 order in Madyun v. Keller, 07-cv-318-bbc, the central purpose of Rule 20 is to enable economies in litigation. Elmore v. Henderson, 227 F.3d 1009, 1012 (7th Cir. 2000); Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1332 (8th Cir. 1974). It is an inefficient use of court time and the time of the defendants named in plaintiff's separate lawsuits to be required to sift through the arguments and motions plaintiff bundles into one document in order to determine which relate to which lawsuit. Beginning now, the court will not consider multi-captioned filings from plaintiff. If plaintiff wishes the court to take specific action with respect to a particular lawsuit, he is to file his motion in the context of that action only. The multi-captioned document plaintiff submitted on June 11, 2008 (inexplicably dated June 12, 2008), a copy of which is attached to this order, will be disregarded in its entirety.