Delbridge v. Polis et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Regina M. Rodriguez
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02299-RMR-NRN
ROBERT A. KEKIC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JARED POLIS,
MOSES ANDRE STANCIL,
ALLISON TALLEY,
AMANDA RETTIG,
CHRIS LOBANOV-ROSTOVSKY, and
SHANE STUCKER,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03141-RMR-NRN
JORGE TENA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JARED POLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03973-RMR-NRN
JEFFREY DELBRIDGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JARED POLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00015-RMR-NRN
ANGELO RITTER-ZWIEG,
Plaintiff,
v.
JARED POLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03973-RMR-NRN Document 61 filed 07/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 6

2
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00064-RMR-NRN
ANDREW C. SALAZAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
JARED POLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00643-RMR-NRN
GARY RYERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JARED POLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00671-RMR-NRN
LEE ALLEN SAMUELSON, a/k/a Leah Samuelson,
Plaintiff,
v.
JARED POLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00775-RMR-NRN
MARIO GUTIERREZ, a/k/a Mario A. Gutierrez,
Plaintiff,
v.
JARED POLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03973-RMR-NRN Document 61 filed 07/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 6

3
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00931-RMR-NRN
WAYNE RICHARD STEWART,
Plaintiff,
v.
JARED POLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00939-RMR-NRN
KEVIN R. PETERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOSES ANDRE STANCIL, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01346-RMR-NRN
GEREK WILDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JARED POLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
AMENDED1 ORDER
I. 	BACKGROUND
These cases involve Plaintiffs who have been charged and convicted under
Colorado’s Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act (“SOLSA”). Under SOLSA, Plaintiffs
are required to receive the Sex Offender Treatment and Monitoring Program’s (“SOTMP”)
1 The case of Wilderson v. Polis, et al., 26-cv-01346 has been added to the Consolidation Order.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03973-RMR-NRN Document 61 filed 07/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 6

4
sex offender treatment. Plaintiffs each allege that Colorado Department of Corrections
(“CDOC”) has failed to provide this treatment and, thus, they are ineligible for parole.
Each Plaintiff brings nearly identical claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants.
On June 10, 2026, Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico reassigned each of these
cases to this Court. See Case No. 1:25-cv-9373, ECF No. 52. For the reasons stated
below, the Court sua sponte ORDERS consolidation of discovery in these cases.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The determination of whether to consolidate cases is governed by Rule 42(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides, in pertinent part:
If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the
court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all the matters in issue in the
actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid
unnecessary costs or delay.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). This rule allows the Court “to decide how cases on its docket are to
be tried so that the business of the [C]ourt may be dispatched with expedition and
economy while providing justice to the parties.” Breaux v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 220
F.R.D. 366, 367 (D. Colo. 2004) (quoting 9 Charles Alan Wright, et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc.
§ 2381 at 427 (2d ed. 1995)). The decision whether to consolidate such actions is left to
the trial court's sound discretion. Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978).
“The court generally weighs the saving of time and effort that consolidation would produce
against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that consolidation would cause.” Checkers
Indus. Prods., LLC v. Indus. Advanced Techs., Inc., No. 18-CV-03238-JLK, 2023 WL
2681913, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 17, 2023) (citations omitted). “Consolidated cases shall be
Case No. 1:25-cv-03973-RMR-NRN Document 61 filed 07/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 6

5
reassigned to the judicial officer(s) to whom the lowest numbered consolidated case was
assigned.” D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1.
III. 	ANALYSIS
The Court finds that the consolidation of the cases is appropriate for discovery
purposes. 	Each 	case 	asserts 	the 	same 	issues 	and 	involves 	the 	same 	factual
circumstances. Each Plaintiff has filed nearly identical complaints, seeks similar relief,
and brings similar claims against the same Defendants. Thus, the cases will have
overlapping witnesses and discovery. Rule 42(a) permits the Court to “issue any other
orders to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” Consolidation is within the Court’s discretion,
and the Court finds that consolidation of the above-captioned cases streamlines discovery
and promotes just, speedy resolution. The Court does not presently determine whether
the cases should be consolidated beyond discovery.
The Court notes that several motions to dismiss have been filed in these cases.
Defendants Moses Stancil, Allison, Talley, Amanda Rettig, Chris Lovanov-Rostovsky,
and Shane Stucker have filed motions to dismiss in some cases and not others (for
example, Case Nos. 1:26-cv-00643 and 1:26-cv-00939). Any Defendant who has not
already filed a motion to dismiss in any of the above-captioned cases may do so by July
16, 2026. Plaintiffs must respond by August 6, 2026 and Defendants may reply by
August 17, 2026. Following the briefing of the motions to dismiss, the Court will hold a
Status Conference on October 16, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss the status of the
consolidated discovery and next steps.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03973-RMR-NRN Document 61 filed 07/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 6

6
Additionally, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs who intend to move for appointment of
counsel pursuant to D.C.COLO.LAttyR 15(e)(1) must do so by September 1, 2026. The
Court has granted Plaintiff Jorge Tena’s Prisoner Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03141, ECF No. 49.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that discovery in each of the above-
captioned cases is consolidated and all future discovery-related matters shall be filed in
Case No. 1:25-cv-02299. Defendants may file motions to dismiss in individual cases by
July 16, 2026, with Plaintiff’s responses due August 6, 2026, and Defendants’ reply due
August 17, 2026.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs who intend to move for appointment of
counsel pursuant to D.C.COLO.LAttyR 15(e)(1) must do so by September 1, 2026.
Finally, it is FURTHER ORDERED that all parties must appear for the Status
Conference on October 16, 2026 at 1:00 p.m.
DATED: July 7, 2026
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
REGINA M. RODRIGUEZ
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-03973-RMR-NRN Document 61 filed 07/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 6