Janice L. Jones v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services, et al.

Opinion

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

JANICE L. JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-26-963-SLP ) OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ) HUMAN SERVICES, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

Upon review of the Second Amended Complaint1 [Doc. No. 6] and its attachments, certain exhibits, see [Doc. Nos. 6-7, 6-8, 6-10], contain protected information, including the names of one or more individuals that appear to be minors. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to seal the exhibits, [Doc. Nos. 6-7, 6-8, 6-10] to the Second Amended Complaint. This is the third instance in which Plaintiff’s submissions contain the names of minors. The Court previously noted that Plaintiff’s attempts to cover the names of minors with a pen was insufficient. See Order [Doc. No. 5] at 1. The Court again strongly admonishes Plaintiff that the names of minors cannot be discerned in public filings before this Court and must be properly redacted. The Court further directs Plaintiff to file an amended complaint with exhibits that sufficiently redact all minor children’s names and include only their initials, as required

1 While titled as “Amended petition 05-17-2026,” the Court refers to Plaintiff’s submission as the Second Amended Complaint to avoid confusion. by the privacy protection requirements of Rule 5.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to comply with the Court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court’s Local Rules may result in dismissal of

Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204, n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (Rule 41(b) “has long been interpreted to permit district courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court’s orders.”); AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009) (“A district court

undoubtedly has discretion to sanction a party for failing to prosecute or defend a case, or for failing to comply with local or federal procedural rules.”) (quotation omitted); see also Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[P]ro se parties [must] follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [Doc.

No. 6] is STRICKEN. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order, or June 15, 2026. Exhibits attached to the amended complaint must have redactions of all minor children’s names. Such redactions shall be made in such a manner that the full names of any minor children cannot be discerned. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall seal the exhibits attached

to the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. Nos. 6-7, 6-8, 6-10]. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1* day of June, 2026.

SCOTT L. PALK CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE