Brown v. Oklahoma State of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

EDWARD R. BROWN, SR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-25-297-SLP

)

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Edward R. Brown, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings suit

alleging violations of his civil rights. United States District Judge Scott L. Palk referred

this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the

Court dismiss the action without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and follow

the Court’s order and rules.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 7, 2025. Doc. 1. Staff notes on the Court’s

ECF system indicate that same day the Clerk of Court mailed a file-stamped copy of the

complaint to Plaintiff at the Comanche County Detention Center in Lawton, Oklahoma,

the address indicated on the complaint. See Doc. 1 at 4; see also LCvR5.4 (stating that

documents mailed by the Court are “deemed delivered if sent to the last known address

given to the court”). On March 24, 2025, the Court received the file-stamped complaint

back from the Comanche County Detention Center. Doc. 5. The returned mail was marked

“RETURN TO SENDER”; “NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED; “UNABLE TO

FORWARD.” Id.

Per staff notes on the Court’s ECF system, on March 25, 2025, the Clerk of Court

sent the returned mail to Plaintiff at the Oklahoma State Reformatory in Granite,

Oklahoma. The Court’s ECF system indicates that Plaintiff did not file a notice of change

of address in either the instant case or in his other open case before the Court, Brown v.

Oklahoma, No. CIV-25-296-SLP. It is Plaintiff’s obligation to notify the Court of any new

address. See Theede v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 1999) (“The

parties . . . bear the burden of filing notice of a change of address [and] [t]he fact that

[plaintiff] is acting pro se does not eliminate this burden.”); LCvR5.4 (requiring a pro se

litigant to notify the Court of any change of address). The undersigned presumes the Clerk

of Court determined Plaintiff’s current location via the Oklahoma Department of

Corrections (“ODOC”) online inmate locater and updated his address accordingly on the

Court’s ECF system.1

On April 3, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

Doc. 7, and staff notes indicate that the order was mailed to Plaintiff at the Oklahoma State

Reformatory in Granite, Oklahoma. On April 17, 2025, the Court received the order back

from the Oklahoma State Reformatory; the returned mail was marked “RETURN TO

1 The undersigned takes judicial notice of ODOC’s online inmate locator at

https://okoffender.doc.ok.gov/ (last visited May 29, 2025). That online locator shows

Plaintiff is still incarcerated at the Oklahoma State Reformatory. See Triplet v. Franklin,

365 F. App’x 86, 92 n.8 (10th Cir. 2010) (taking judicial notice of the ODOC’s offender

search website).

SENDER”; “REFUSED”; “UNABLE TO FORWARD.” Doc. 8. The Court then ordered

Plaintiff to show cause “why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute”

and warned that “[f]ailure to do so will likely result in dismissal of the case.” Doc. 10 at

3. On May 6, 2025, the Court received the show cause order back from the Oklahoma

State Reformatory; the returned mail was again marked “RETURN TO SENDER”;

“REFUSED”; “UNABLE TO FORWARD.” Doc. 11.

II. Discussion

A court has the inherent authority to manage its own affairs, Link v. Wabash R.R.

Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962), and it may dismiss an action if a litigant “fails to

prosecute or to comply with [the rules of civil procedure] or a court order,” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(b). See Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31 (interpreting Rule 41(b) to permit courts to dismiss

actions sua sponte). Plaintiff’s pro se status does not exempt him from following the rules.

See Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (explaining that pro se parties

must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants” (internal quotation

marks omitted)). A litigant’s failure to comply with court orders leaves a court unable “to

achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link, 370 U.S. at 631.

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and rules, combined with the

Court’s inherent power to manage judicial resources, warrants dismissal of this action

without prejudice. See U.S. ex rel. Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 855 (10th

Cir. 2005) (“[D]ismissal is an appropriate disposition against a party who disregards court

orders and fails to proceed as required by court rules.”).

III. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS

this action without prejudice. Plaintiff is advised of his right to object to this Report and

Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of

Court not later than June 20, 2025. See id. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure

to object timely waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues

addressed in this Report and Recommendation. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656,

659 (10th Cir. 1991).

This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge in this matter.

ENTERED this 30" day of May, 2025.

(iw tip

CHRIS M. se Nf

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE