Hill v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 5:25-cv-01248-PRW Document 11
Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ARTHUR TEQUON HILL, JR.
)
Plaintiff,
) ) )
v.
)
Case No. CIV-25-1248-PRW
)
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT )
OF CORRECTIONS et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on October 21, 2025, alleging violations of his constitutional rights based on Defendants' failure to protect him from a substantial risk of serious harm at the Red Rock Correctional Facility. Doc. 1, at 1-2.1 United States District Judge Patrick R. Wyrick referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Doc. 5.
The undersigned recommends the Court deny Plaintiff's in forma pauperis (IFP) motion, Doc. 8, 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. Alternatively, the Court
1 Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless otherwise indicated.
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

2
should dismiss this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Court’s
Rules.
I. 	Discussion.
On October 22, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies
in his filings by submitting a new signed complaint and either paying the
$405.00 filing fee or submitting an IFP application. Doc. 6. The Court gave
Plaintiff until November 12, 2025, to comply. Id at 1-2. 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
On October 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and an IFP
motion. Docs. 7, 8.2 Plaintiff did not submit his IFP motion on the Court’s form
and did not attach a certified copy of his trust fund account statements with
his motion as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Doc. 8.3
On November 12, 2025, the Postmaster returned the Court’s Order to
Cure, Doc. 6, to the Court as “no such number” and “unable to forward.” Doc.
10. Since that date, Plaintiff has not submitted a change of address form as
2 	Plaintiff has also filed two motions for preliminary injunction. Docs. 2, 9.
3 	Plaintiff states in the IFP motion that he has attached a certified copy of
his inmate trust account statement to the motion. Doc. 8, at 1. But the
document contains no attachments.
Case 5:25-cv-01248-PRW Document 11 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 5

3
required by the Local Rules or otherwise communicated with the Court. See
LCvR5.4 (requiring pro se litigants to notify the Court of a change of address
by filing the appropriate form with the Clerk of Court).
Because 	Plaintiff 	has 	not 	provided 	this 	Court 	with 	the 	requisite
information to establish his indigent status, the Court should deny his motion
to proceed IFP, Doc. 8. 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 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.”).
Alternatively, the Court should dismiss this action based on Plaintiff’s
failure to prosecute by keeping the Court informed of his current address.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a court may dismiss an action if the plaintiff “fails
to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b). Courts have consistently interpreted this rule to permit sua sponte
dismissal. Huggins v. Sup. Ct. of the U.S., 480 F. App’x 915, 916-17 (10th
Cir. 2012); AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552
Case 5:25-cv-01248-PRW Document 11 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 5

4
F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009) (“A district court undoubtedly has discretion
to sanction a party for failing to prosecute or defend a case, or for failing to
comply with local or federal procedural rules.” (quoting Reed v. Bennett, 312
F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 2002))). And if dismissal is without prejudice, the
court may dismiss without attention to the non-exhaustive list of factors that,
by 	contrast, 	must 	inform 	a 	dismissal 	with 	prejudice. 	AdvantEdge 	Bus.
Grp., 552 F.3d at 1236 & n.2.
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).
Case 5:25-cv-01248-PRW Document 11 Filed 12/09/25 Page 4 of 5

Case 5:25-cv-01248-PRW Document 11
Filed 12/09/25 Page 5 of 5
II. Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court deny Plaintiff's IFP motion and dismiss the action if Plaintiff does not pay the full filing fee within 21 days of the Court's adoption of this Report and Recommendation. Alternatively, the Court should dismiss this action based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and follow the Court's Rules. The Court should also deny Plaintiff's pending motions for preliminary injunction as moot. Docs. 2, 9.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by December 30, 2025, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. The undersigned further advises Plaintiff that failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives his 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 9th day of December, 2025.
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5