Clark v. CoreCivic Inc et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DEWAYNE CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORECIVIC, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-775-SLP
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).
Case 5:25-cv-00775-SLP Document 38 Filed 04/28/26 Page 1 of 2

2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of His Motion for
Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice [Doc. No. 37] is STRICKEN as procedurally
improper.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00775-SLP Document 38 Filed 04/28/26 Page 2 of 2