Wakat v. Lamar Advertising Co.

Opinion

nited States District Court for the Sorthern District of Oklahoma

Case No. 25-cv-381-JDR-JFJ

AUGUST WAKAT, Plaintiff, versus LAMAR ADVERTISING Co.; PATRICK SELCER, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se! Plaintiff August Wakat sued Defendant Lamar Advertising Co. claiming that a billboard on his property violates federal law. Dk. 2. The Court denied his request to file electronically and his application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 10. The Court further dismissed his complaint but gave him until August 18, 2025, to file a completed in forma pauperis form or pre-pay the filing fees and to amend his complaint. /d.. Rather than amend his com- plaint or file a completed in forma pauperis affidavit, Mr. Wakat objected to the ruling and filed another incomplete in forma pauperis affidavit. Dkt. 11. Mr. Wakat’s objection to the Court’s order is overruled, and his case is dis- missed without prejudice. In the July 20, 2025, opinion and order, the Court warned Mr. Wakat that it was unable to determine Mr. Wakat’s financial ability to prepay filing fees because he submitted an incomplete supporting affidavit. Dkt. 10 at 3.

' Consistent with Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent, the Court will con- strue Mr. Wakat’s pro se pleadings liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Gaines pv. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002).

No. 25-cv-381

The Court gave Mr. Wakat until August 18, 2025, to file a completed affidavit or prepay the filing fees. Jd. With Mr. Wakat’s objection, he filed a copy of an affidavit he filed in another case in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Dkt. 11 at 5-7. This affidavit suffers from the same insufficiencies as his previous affi- davit: it fails to state any employment information about his spouse; whose name his real property is filed under; the estimated value and amount owed on his real property; any income from his real property; and ownership of any other property, such as cars, cash in banks, savings, and loan associations. Jd. at 6. Further, Mr. Wakat fails to provide any information about his monthly obligations. /d. at 7. Mr. Wakat has failed to file a complete affidavit or prepay the filing fees by the deadline. Mr. Wakat also asks the court to reinstate his complaint and grant him leave to amend. Dkt. 11 at 3. But the Court already provided Mr. Wakat with leave to amend his complaint and warned him that failure to do so would re- sult in dismissal. Dkt. 10 at 3. Mr. Wakat did not file an amended complaint. His objection [Dkt. 11] is overruled and the case is dismissed without preju- dice. DATED this 19th day of August 2025.

JOHN D. RUSSELL United States District Judge