Purdy v. Jackson County Jail et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOHN WESLEY PURDY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-993-R
)
JACKSON COUNTY JAIL, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiff John Wesley Purdy, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
attempting to allege violations of his civil rights. Doc. 1. United States District Judge
David L. Russell referred this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned
recommends that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure
to follow the Court’s order and rules.
I. Background and Discussion
On September 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint against officials at the
Jackson County Jail in Altus, Oklahoma. Doc. 1. On September 4, 2025, the Court advised
Plaintiff that he had neither paid the required filing fee nor, alternatively, filed a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. 5. The Court ordered Plaintiff to cure
this deficiency not later than September 25, 2025. The Court advised Plaintiff that “failure
to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action.” Id. (citation
modified); see also LCvR3.2(b) (instructing that a “matter may be subject to dismissal
without prejudice” if the filing fee is not paid). The Court also directed the Clerk of Court
Case 5:25-cv-00993-R Document 6 Filed 10/14/25 Page 1 of 3

2
to send Plaintiff any necessary forms to comply with the Order. Id. The docket indicates
via ECF Staff Notes that on September 4, 2025, the Clerk of Court mailed the Order and
necessary forms to Plaintiff at his last known address. See LCvR5.4 (stating that
documents mailed by the Court are “deemed delivered if sent to the last known address
given to the court”).
The Postmaster has returned no mailed documents back to the Court as
undeliverable. In addition, the case docket indicates that, as of this date, Plaintiff has failed
to comply with the Order, as he has not paid the required filing fee or filed a motion to
proceed IFP. Nor has Plaintiff attempted to show good cause for his failure to comply or
requested an extension of time in which to comply. See LCvR3.2(b) (explaining for
conventionally-filed cases that if a “party intends to proceed in forma pauperis, an
application to do so must be submitted at the time the initiating documents are submitted;
otherwise, filing fees must be 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”).
A court has the inherent authority to manage its own affairs, Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962), and it may dismiss an action if a plaintiff “fails to
prosecute or to comply with [the rules of civil procedure] or a court order,” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b). See Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31 (interpreting Rule 41(b) to permit courts to dismiss
actions sua sponte). Plaintiff’s pro se status does not exempt him from following the rules.
See Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (explaining that pro se parties
must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants” (citation modified)).
Case 5:25-cv-00993-R Document 6 Filed 10/14/25 Page 2 of 3

3
A litigant’s failure to comply with a court order leaves a court unable “to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link, 370 U.S. at 631.
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and rules, combined with the
Court’s inherent power to manage judicial resources, warrants dismissal of this action
without prejudice. See U.S. ex rel. Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 855 (10th
Cir. 2005) (“Dismissal is an appropriate disposition against a party who disregards court
orders and fails to proceed as required by court rules.” (citation modified)).
II. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS
Plaintiff’s action without prejudice. Plaintiff is advised of his right to object to this Report
and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk
of Court by November 5, 2025. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Failure to object timely waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues
addressed in this Report and Recommendation. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656,
659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-00993-R Document 6 Filed 10/14/25 Page 3 of 3