Chavez v. West et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CELSO CHAVEZ, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. CIV-26-245-PRW
)
SHERIFF CHRIS WEST, in 	)
his official capacity et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on February 11, 2026, alleging
violations of his constitutional rights. Doc. 1, at 2-3.1 United States District
Judge Patrick R. Wyrick referred the matter to the undersigned for initial
proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Doc. 4.
The 	undersigned 	recommends 	the 	Court 	deny 	Plaintiff’s 	in 	forma
pauperis (IFP) motion, Doc. 2, and dismiss the complaint without prejudice
unless Plaintiff pays the filing fee within twenty-one (21) days of the Court’s
order adopting this Report and Recommendation.
I. 	Discussion.
1 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
Case 5:26-cv-00245-PRW Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 4

2
On February 12, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies
in his IFP motion by submitting it on the proper form with the required
financial information and signature of the authorized officer of the penal
institution in which he is confined, and to attach a certified copy of his trust
fund account statements with his motion as required under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(2). Doc. 5. The Court gave Plaintiff until March 5, 2026, to comply. Id.
at 2. The Clerk of Court sent the order and appropriate forms to Plaintiff at
the address he provided to the Court. See id. (court notes). “Papers sent by the
court will be deemed delivered if sent to the last known address given to the
court.” LCvR5.4. As of this date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s
order.
Plaintiff has not provided this Court with the requisite information to
establish his indigent status, so the Court should deny his motion to proceed
IFP, Doc. 2. See, e.g., Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1313 (10th Cir.
2005) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying IFP status
to plaintiff who “failed to fill out the proper forms or to otherwise provide the
district court with the requisite information”). The Court should also dismiss
this action without prejudice if Plaintiff does not pay the $405.00 filing fee in
full to the Clerk of the Court within 21 days of any order adopting this Report
and Recommendation. See LCvR3.3(e) (“In the event the [IFP] application is
Case 5:26-cv-00245-PRW Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 4

3
denied, the filing party shall have 21 days, unless a different time is specified
by the court, within which to pay the required filing fees.”).
Plaintiff appears pro se, but he must follow the same rules as any other
litigant. See Davis v. Kan. Dep’t of Corrs., 507 F.3d 1246, 1247 n.1 (10th Cir.
2007) (holding a pro se litigant “to the same rules of procedure as other
litigants”). The undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court
informed of his current address, together with the Court’s inherent power to
manage judicial resources, warrants dismissal of this action without prejudice.
See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 n.2 (10th
Cir. 2007) (noting Rule 41(b) permits courts “to dismiss actions sua sponte for
a plaintiff’s failure to . . . comply with the rules of civil procedures or court’s
orders”); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (discussing the
inherent power of a court to dismiss suits for lack of prosecution).
II. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court
deny Plaintiff’s IFP motion, Doc. 2, and dismiss this action without prejudice
if he does not pay the full filing fee within 21 days of the Court’s adoption of
this Report and Recommendation.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this
Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by April 3, 2026, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. The
Case 5:26-cv-00245-PRW Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 4

4
undersigned further advises Petitioner that failure to make timely objection to
this Report and Recommendation waives her right to appellate review of both
factual and legal questions contained herein. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d
656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This Report and Recommendation disposes of the
issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.
ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00245-PRW Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 4