Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivic, Inc., et al.

Opinion

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

DEWAYNE CLARK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-775-SLP ) CORECIVIC, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of His Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice [Doc. No. 37]. Plaintiff’s submission was not filed with the Court until April 23, 2026. Pursuant to the Court’s local rules, the deadline to submit a reply brief to a civil motion is “within 7 days after the date the response was filed[,]” which made Plaintiff’s reply brief due on April 18, 2026. See LCvR 7.1(g). Even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s date of mailing of April 20, 2026, on his Certificate of Service, such filing would still be untimely.1 Plaintiff’s status as a pro se prisoner does not excuse Plaintiff from his obligations to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s local rules. See, e.g., Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994) (“pro se parties must comply with the same procedural rules that govern all other litigants”).

1 The Court notes such Certificate of Service is insufficient to receive the benefits of the prison mailbox rule. See Price v. Philpot, 430 F.3d 1158, 1166 (10th Cir. 2005). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiffs Reply in Support of His Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice [Doc. No. 37] is STRICKEN as procedurally improper. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28" day of April, 2026.

SCOTT L. PALK CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE