Brooks v. Wallace

W.D. Oklahoma

Brooks v. Wallace

DecidedAugust 12, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00225

StatusUnknown

This text of Brooks v. Wallace (Brooks v. Wallace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brooks v. Wallace, (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CLARENCE BROOKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-225-G ) SCOTT WALLACE et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Plaintiff Clarence Brooks, a state inmate appearing pro se, filed this federal civil rights action and an application seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 13, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and advised Plaintiff that unless he paid the $405.00 filing fee in full to the Clerk of the Court on or before June 3, 2025, or showed good cause for his failure to do so, this action was subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Order of May 13, 2025 (Doc. No. 9). The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record and returned as undeliverable. See Doc. No. 10.1 As of this date, Plaintiff has not submitted his required filing fee, shown good cause for his failure to do so, or otherwise been in contact with the Court. Plaintiff has had “ample time” to ensure compliance but has instead chosen to disregard the Court’s Order. Soeken v. Estep, 270 F. App’x 734, 736 (10th Cir. 2008). Further, “[a] district court possesses broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss a

1 It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to update the Court as to address changes. See LCvR 5.4. petition without prejudice for failing to comply with court orders.” Jd. at 735-36; see also Thornton v. Estep, 209 F. App’x 755, 756-57 (10th Cir. 2006); Adams v. Wiley, 298 F. App’x 767, 768-69 (10th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, dismissal of this matter is warranted. See LCvR 3.3(e) (prescribing that if an in forma pauperis application is denied, the litigant’s “[flailure to pay the filing fees by the date specified, to seek a timely extension within which to make the payment, or to show cause in writing by the date specified for payment” “shall be cause for dismissal of the action without prejudice to refiling”’); Sears v. Dist. Att’y, No. CIV-17-1195-HE, 2017 WL 7669372 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 28, 2017) (R. & R.), adopted, 2018 WL 837607 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 12, 2018). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint (Doc. No. 1) in this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate judgment shall be entered. IT IS SO ORDERED this12th day of August, 2025.

(Vauba B. Kodo United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CLARENCE BROOKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-225-G ) SCOTT WALLACE et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Plaintiff Clarence Brooks, a state inmate appearing pro se, filed this federal civil rights action and an application seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 13, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and advised Plaintiff that unless he paid the $405.00 filing fee in full to the Clerk of the Court on or before June 3, 2025, or showed good cause for his failure to do so, this action was subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Order of May 13, 2025 (Doc. No. 9). The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record and returned as undeliverable. See Doc. No. 10.1 As of this date, Plaintiff has not submitted his required filing fee, shown good cause for his failure to do so, or otherwise been in contact with the Court. Plaintiff has had “ample time” to ensure compliance but has instead chosen to disregard the Court’s Order. Soeken v. Estep, 270 F. App’x 734, 736 (10th Cir. 2008). Further, “[a] district court possesses broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss a

1 It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to update the Court as to address changes. See LCvR 5.4. petition without prejudice for failing to comply with court orders.” Jd. at 735-36; see also Thornton v. Estep, 209 F. App’x 755, 756-57 (10th Cir. 2006); Adams v. Wiley, 298 F. App’x 767, 768-69 (10th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, dismissal of this matter is warranted. See LCvR 3.3(e) (prescribing that if an in forma pauperis application is denied, the litigant’s “[flailure to pay the filing fees by the date specified, to seek a timely extension within which to make the payment, or to show cause in writing by the date specified for payment” “shall be cause for dismissal of the action without prejudice to refiling”’); Sears v. Dist. Att’y, No. CIV-17-1195-HE, 2017 WL 7669372 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 28, 2017) (R. & R.), adopted, 2018 WL 837607 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 12, 2018). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint (Doc. No. 1) in this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate judgment shall be entered. IT IS SO ORDERED this12th day of August, 2025.

(Vauba B. Kodo United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brooks v. Wallace, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-wallace-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack