Holz v. Jasper

W.D. Oklahoma

Holz v. Jasper

DecidedNovember 7, 2024

Docket5:24-cv-00416

StatusUnknown

This text of Holz v. Jasper (Holz v. Jasper) 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

Holz v. Jasper, (W.D. Okla. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

TIMOTHY EDWARD HOLZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-416-G ) BROOKE JASPER et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Plaintiff Timothy Edward Holz, appearing pro se, filed a federal civil rights complaint and an application seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On August 19, 2024, 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 September 9, 2024, or showed good cause for his failure to do so, this action was subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Order of Aug. 19, 2024 (Doc. No. 7). 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 petition without prejudice for failing to comply with court orders.” Id. 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 this 7th day of November, 2024.

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

TIMOTHY EDWARD HOLZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-416-G ) BROOKE JASPER et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Plaintiff Timothy Edward Holz, appearing pro se, filed a federal civil rights complaint and an application seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On August 19, 2024, 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 September 9, 2024, or showed good cause for his failure to do so, this action was subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Order of Aug. 19, 2024 (Doc. No. 7). 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 petition without prejudice for failing to comply with court orders.” Id. 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 this 7th day of November, 2024.

United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Holz v. Jasper, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holz-v-jasper-okwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack