Christopher Lamar King v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

W.D. Oklahoma

Christopher Lamar King v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

DecidedJanuary 28, 2026

Docket5:25-cv-01278

StatusUnknown

This text of Christopher Lamar King v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections (Christopher Lamar King v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections) 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

Christopher Lamar King v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, (W.D. Okla. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CHRISTOPHER LAMAR KING, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1278-SLP ) OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, ) ) Defendant. )

O R D E R This matter is before the Court pursuant to its January 5, 2026 Order [Doc. No. 7] requiring Plaintiff to pay the requisite filing fee no later than January 26, 2026.1 In that Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee nor has he requested an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, this action is hereby dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with the Court’s Order [Doc. No. 7]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007) (sua sponte dismissal permitted where a plaintiff fails to comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders).2

1 Due to the closure of the Court on Monday, January 26, 2026, Plaintiff had the opportunity to pay the requisite filing fee on January 27, 2026. Plaintiff did not do so.

2 Based on a review of Plaintiff’s submissions, Plaintiff’s claims seem to be based on alleged failures of ODOC personnel in 2024 and 2025, so it appears the statute of limitations has not expired for any § 1983 claim through which he alleges constitutional violations. See 12 Okla. Stat. § 95(A)(3); see also Heuston v. Ballard, 578 F. App’x 791, 792 (10th Cir. 2014) (noting the IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with the Court’s Order. A separate judgment shall be entered contemporaneously herewith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28" day of January, 2026.

SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

applicable limitations period for a § 1983 claim in Oklahoma is two years). Accordingly, the Court may dismiss this action without consideration of the criteria applicable to a dismissal with prejudice. See AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009).

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CHRISTOPHER LAMAR KING, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1278-SLP ) OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, ) ) Defendant. )

O R D E R This matter is before the Court pursuant to its January 5, 2026 Order [Doc. No. 7] requiring Plaintiff to pay the requisite filing fee no later than January 26, 2026.1 In that Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee nor has he requested an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, this action is hereby dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with the Court’s Order [Doc. No. 7]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007) (sua sponte dismissal permitted where a plaintiff fails to comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders).2

1 Due to the closure of the Court on Monday, January 26, 2026, Plaintiff had the opportunity to pay the requisite filing fee on January 27, 2026. Plaintiff did not do so.

2 Based on a review of Plaintiff’s submissions, Plaintiff’s claims seem to be based on alleged failures of ODOC personnel in 2024 and 2025, so it appears the statute of limitations has not expired for any § 1983 claim through which he alleges constitutional violations. See 12 Okla. Stat. § 95(A)(3); see also Heuston v. Ballard, 578 F. App’x 791, 792 (10th Cir. 2014) (noting the IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with the Court’s Order. A separate judgment shall be entered contemporaneously herewith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28" day of January, 2026.

SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

applicable limitations period for a § 1983 claim in Oklahoma is two years). Accordingly, the Court may dismiss this action without consideration of the criteria applicable to a dismissal with prejudice. See AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Christopher Lamar King v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-lamar-king-v-oklahoma-department-of-corrections-okwd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack