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

W.D. Oklahoma

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

DecidedApril 28, 2026

Docket5:25-cv-00775

StatusUnknown

This text of Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivic, Inc., et al. (Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivic, Inc., et al.) 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

Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivic, Inc., et al., (W.D. Okla. 2026).

Pincite

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

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivic, Inc., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dewayne-clark-v-corecivic-inc-et-al-okwd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack