Hronich v. Hernandez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BRANDON P. HRONICH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 2:26-cv-00820-KRS
ANDREA HERNANDEZ and
CHRIS PENA,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
NOTICE REGARDING PROSECUTION OF CASE AND SERVICE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 4, filed March 18, 2026 (“Application”), and
Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed March 18, 2026
(“Complaint”), and Plaintiff’s Complaint for Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
Ultra Vires Action, and First Amendment Free Exercise Violations, Doc. 8, filed April 9, 2026
(“Amended Complaint”).
Order Denying Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
The Court notified Plaintiff that it appears from the information Plaintiff provided in his
Application to proceed in forma pauperis that Plaintiff is able to pay the $405.00 fee for initiating
this case and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not deny his Application. See
Order to Show Cause at 2, Doc. 5, filed March 20, 2026. Instead of showing cause, Plaintiff paid
the $405.00 fee. 	See Doc. 7, filed April 9, 2026. 	The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 4, filed March 18,
2026, as moot.
Case 2:26-cv-00820-DLM-KRS Document 9 Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Notice Regarding Prosecution of Case and Service
Plaintiff has an obligation to prosecute this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff
fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss
the action”). Plaintiff also has an obligation to serve Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“The
plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by
Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service”). “Although
the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file a motion to dismiss, the Rule has long
been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute
or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court's orders.” Gustafson v. Luke, 696 Fed.Appx.
352, 354 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2026.
__________________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00820-DLM-KRS Document 9 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 2