Zudell v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections et al

Filing 8

ORDER re 5 Letter. Plaintiff's request is premature. If, closer to the September 18, 2017 deadline, the prison has not returned the necessary form to Plaintiff, he may then request an extension of time to cure the deficiency. Signed by Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell on 09/08/2017. (jb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
FORREST ZUDELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-925-R

ORDER
On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action seeking relief under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional rights.

Doc. 1.

Plaintiff requested in the body of his complaint “to proceed in forma pauperis
28 U.S.C. 1915.” Id. at 1. On August 29, 2017, because Plaintiff had failed to
use the proper form and to follow the proper procedure in seeking in forma
pauperis (ifp) status, the court ordered him to cure the deficiency by September
18, 2017, and directed the Clerk of Court to send him any forms necessary for
compliance with that order.
The court is now in receipt of a letter that Plaintiff directed to the court
just a few days later. Doc. 5. Apart from describing his case, Plaintiff advised
the court that he had received the ifp form and had given the inmate trust fund
portion of the form to his prison’s library official for completion. Id. at 1.
Plaintiff also informed the court that he receives $10 a month in prison gang

pay. Id. Plaintiff then concluded by speculating that the prison was not “going
to get [him] the information [he] need[s] to proceed [ifp]” and asking the court
to “order the prison for the information.” Id. at 2.
The court will address Plaintiff’s letter on this single occasion only and
only because Plaintiff has not been previously advised of the consequence of
filing motions, notices, and letters that are not consistent with the rules of
procedure that govern civil litigation in this Court.

Though a court will

“construe [Plaintiff’s] pleadings liberally because he is a pro se litigant, he
nevertheless must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other
litigants.” Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992).
The court now specifically advises Plaintiff that hereafter: (1) the court
will not consider and will summarily strike any motion that is not consistent
with the motion practice established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
or this Court’s Local Civil Rules;1 (2) the court will not consider and will
summarily strike any notice or similarly-captioned filing that is not consistent
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this Court’s Local Civil Rules; (3)
the court does not rule on letters and will not consider and will summarily
strike any correspondence from Plaintiff; and (4) Plaintiff may correspond with
the Clerk of Court’s office to obtain assistance concerning procedures in this

The court directs the Clerk of Court to include a copy of this
Court’s local civil rules when mailing a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
2
1

Court but no court personnel can advise Plaintiff on matters of law or give legal
advice.
With respect to the letter submitted by Plaintiff before receiving the
foregoing notification, his request is premature. He is only guessing that the
prison will not comply. If, closer to the September 18, 2017 deadline, the prison
has not returned the necessary form to Plaintiff, he may then request—and
the court will freely grant—a request for an extension of time to cure the
deficiency.
ORDERED this 8th day of September, 2017.

3