Rainville v. Oklahoma State of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRANDON RAINVILLE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-24-G
)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Brandon Rainville, proceeding pro se, brings this action seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. United States District Judge Charles B. Goodwin 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
the action with prejudice. Plaintiff also has several motions pending; adoption of the
recommendation to dismiss the action would moot each of those motions.
I. Discussion
A. Complaints
On January 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed his original Complaint listing seven defendants.
Doc. 1. The next day, Plaintiff filed two supplements to his Complaint, which appeared to
make additional allegations against additional defendants. Docs. 4, 5. Because the
Complaint and supplements did not provide the information necessary to initiate a civil
rights action, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint consisting of one
document. Doc. 7. The Order explained that an amended complaint (1) would take the
place of Plaintiff’s original complaint; (2) must include any information Plaintiff wants the
Case 5:26-cv-00024-G Document 23 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Court to consider; (3) must follow the general rules of pleading in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8; and (4) must enable the Court and the defendant(s) to know what claims are
being asserted and against whom. Id. at 1-3. And the Court warned Plaintiff that failure
to comply with the Order “may result in dismissal of this action. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff timely filed his Amended Complaint. Doc. 10. The Amended Complaint,
however, still failed to provide the necessary information to initiate Plaintiff’s action.
Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint providing the
necessary information. Doc. 13. The Order again explained what information was
required. Id.
Plaintiff timely filed his Second Amended Complaint. Doc. 20.1 Again, however,
Plaintiff failed to provide the necessary information to initiate his action. Though he brings
Ground One against multiple defendants, his supporting facts allege only actions taken by
“officers of the Comanche Co. Detention Center.” Sec. Am. Compl. at 9-10. Similarly,
Plaintiff brings Ground Two against multiple defendants, but alleges actions taken by
“Respondents” and “Officials.” Id. at 10-11.
The Court has explained to Plaintiff—twice—that his complaint must “make clear
exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom.” Doc. 7 at 3 (quoting Robbins v.
Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008)); Doc. 13 at 3 (same). Though Plaintiff
1 When Plaintiff filed his original Complaint and Amended Complaint, it appears he was
incarcerated at the Comanche County Detention Center. Docs. 1-1; 11-1. Before filing his
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, indicating he
had been released from custody. Doc. 16.
Case 5:26-cv-00024-G Document 23 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 5

3
may bring claims against multiple defendants, he must “provide each individual with fair
notice as to the basis of the claims against him or her.” Doc. 7 at 3 (quoting Robbins, 519
F.3d at 1250); Doc. 13 at 3 (citation modified) (same). Here, Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint fails to clarify which persons or entities allegedly took what actions and when.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders and with the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1249-50
(discussing the fair notice requirement under Rule 8(a)(2)).
B. Failure to Comply with Orders and Rules
A court has the inherent authority to manage its own affairs and may dismiss an
action if the 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 v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31
(1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte). A litigant’s
failure to comply with court orders leaves a court unable “to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases.” Id. And Plaintiff’s pro se status does not exempt him
from “follow[ing] the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Nielsen v. Price,
17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation modified).
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s orders and rules, as well as the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. These failures, combined with the Court’s inherent power to
manage judicial resources, warrant 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)).
Case 5:26-cv-00024-G Document 23 Filed 04/14/26 Page 3 of 5

4
C. Dismissal with Prejudice
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) mandates that a “court should freely give
leave” to amend a pleading “when justice so requires.” And giving a pro se litigant leave
to amend is appropriate when the “‘factual allegations are close to stating a claim.’” Gee
v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1195 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991)). Giving leave to amend is not appropriate, however, when claims
“are barred by . . . the statute of limitations so that amending those claims would be futile.”
Id. “Stated differently, the Court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s claims with prejudice
when it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged and
allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile.” Wrenn v. Oklahoma,
No. CIV-25-00241-JD, 2026 WL 709897, at *10 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 13, 2026) (citation
modified) (quoting Knight v. Mooring Capital Fund, LLC, 749 F.3d 1180, 1190 (10th Cir.
2014)); accord Anderson v. Suiters, 499 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff’s claims relate to an incident that allegedly occurred at the Comanche
County Detention Center when his finger was closed in a cell door, amputating his
fingertip. Sec. Am. Compl. at 10-11. This incident occurred on October 26, 2017. Id. at
10. In Oklahoma, a two-year statute of limitations applies to a civil rights action brought
under § 1983. E.g., Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,
the claims Plaintiff attempts to bring in this action are barred by the statute of limitations.
As such, amendment of his complaint would be futile.
Case 5:26-cv-00024-G Document 23 Filed 04/14/26 Page 4 of 5

5
D. Other Pending Motions
Plaintiff has pending the following motions:
• Motion to Subpoena (spelling altered), Doc. 8;
• Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Doc. 11;
• Motion for Temporary Relief, Doc. 12;
• Amended Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis,
Doc. 21; and
• Motion for Temporary Immediate Relief, Doc. 22.
Adoption of this Report and Recommendation would moot each of the motions.
II. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS
the action with 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 not later than May 5, 2026. See id. § 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 April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00024-G Document 23 Filed 04/14/26 Page 5 of 5