Anthony J. Lucero v. James R. Koncilja, et al.

Pursuant to Rule 14 of Supreme Court of the United States Rules effective July 1, 2019 Preface: Petitioner reiterated his multiple complaints against Respondents throughout each of these court cases, as referenced below.

1. As former attorneys for Petitioner Lucero, did Respondents Konciljas violate Petitioner’s U.S. 14th Amendment due process rights by not investigating Plain Petitioner’s severe, near-death work-related multiple injuries before filing a complaint in district court - which complaint included all parties except for the two parties that were the ones culpable for Petitioner’s multiple injuries?

2. Did Respondents further violate Petitioner’s U.S. 14th Amendment rights to due process by fading to proceed with any normal legal action at all such that the Pueblo District Court ruled against (Petitioner) Lucero with a Notice of Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute - which laxness by Respondent attorney Koncilja closed the legal doors on Petitioner’s efforts to seek redress for his multiple lifethreatening work injuries?

3. Was Petitioner prejudiced and his due process rights repeatedly violated by Colorado state courts and U.S. Federal courts when those courts did not legally notice that Petitioner had filed a timely - completed in all ways - Motion for Default Judgment against Respondents, when Respondents were forty-three (43) days late in filing an initial responsive pleading to Petitioner’s Amended Complaint?