Oscar Ismael Tamara Hernandez v. United States Attorney General et al.

W.D. Oklahoma

Oscar Ismael Tamara Hernandez v. United States Attorney General et al.

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma·Decided August 10, 2026·No. 5:26-cv-01065·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

OSCAR ISMAEL TAMARA ) HERNANDEZ, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-26-1065-G ) UNITED STATES ) ATTORNEY GENERAL et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ORDER On May 11, 2026, Petitioner Oscar Ismael Tamara Hernandez initiated this habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Pet. (Doc. No. 1). Unless an initiating party intends to proceed in forma pauperis, “filing fees must paid in full within 3 business days of filing a civil action, suit, or proceeding, or the matter may be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” LCvR 3.2(b). On June 5, 2026, the Court directed Petitioner to “pay the required filing fee of $5.00, or, alternatively, file an application to proceed in forma pauperis” no later than June 12, 2026. See Order (Doc. No. 4) at 1. The Court’s Order was mailed to Petitioner at his address of record and returned as undeliverable. See Doc. No. 6. As of this date, Petitioner has not paid the filing fee, submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise been in contact with the Court. Petitioner 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.” 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 3.2(b), 5.4; see also Hendrix vy. Emp.’s Reinsurance Corp., 26 F. App’x 873, 874 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Pro se litigants must follow the rules of procedure, including local rules.”). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate judgment shall be entered. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2026.

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

OSCAR ISMAEL TAMARA ) HERNANDEZ, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-26-1065-G ) UNITED STATES ) ATTORNEY GENERAL et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ORDER On May 11, 2026, Petitioner Oscar Ismael Tamara Hernandez initiated this habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Pet. (Doc. No. 1). Unless an initiating party intends to proceed in forma pauperis, “filing fees must paid in full within 3 business days of filing a civil action, suit, or proceeding, or the matter may be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” LCvR 3.2(b). On June 5, 2026, the Court directed Petitioner to “pay the required filing fee of $5.00, or, alternatively, file an application to proceed in forma pauperis” no later than June 12, 2026. See Order (Doc. No. 4) at 1. The Court’s Order was mailed to Petitioner at his address of record and returned as undeliverable. See Doc. No. 6. As of this date, Petitioner has not paid the filing fee, submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise been in contact with the Court. Petitioner 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.” 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 3.2(b), 5.4; see also Hendrix vy. Emp.’s Reinsurance Corp., 26 F. App’x 873, 874 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Pro se litigants must follow the rules of procedure, including local rules.”). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate judgment shall be entered. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2026.

United States District Judge

Oscar Ismael Tamara Hernandez v. United States Attorney General et al., (W.D. Okla. 2026).

Pincite

Oscar Ismael Tamara Hernandez v. United States Attorney General et al. (Oscar Ismael Tamara Hernandez v. United States Attorney General et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related