United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
H. PAYNE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
21, 2015, Petitioner filed a document entitled Emergency Ex
Parte Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Dkt. # 1) in the Western
District of Oklahoma. The gist of petitioner's pleadings
is that some prison officials told him he could not keep more
than one cubic foot of legal materials within his cell and he
requested the court issue a restraining order to keep prison
officials from seizing his excess legal papers. Additionally,
petitioner requested that the court appoint counsel and an
investigator to file a follow up petition. Since the filing
of this petition, petitioner has continually filed motions
requesting extensions of time to amend his pleadings. On
September 8, 2015, an order was entered granting
petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Dkt. # 8. On October 14, 2015, United States
Magistrate Judge Goodwin granted petitioner's motions
seeking additional time to pay his filing fee and denied his
motion for appointment of counsel and/or an investigator.
Dkt. # 16.
October 23, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to extend the
time to file a motion to amend his complaint. In this motion,
Petitioner claims he is in the “affidavit stage of
pleading special matters.” Dkt. # 21, at p. 1. The
motion further indicates Petitioner is trying to raise claims
of “fraud, retalation (sic), and medical issues dealing
with [petitioner] being infected by an illness H-pylow (sic)
and other things through the selective food service issues
and drugged by the correctional officers at the Okla. State
Pen. OSP.” Id.
November 2, 2015, petitioner filed a pleading entitled
“Affidavit and Motion Emergency Temporary Restraining
and Protective Order; Preliminary Injunction and Appointment
of Counsel and Evidentiary Hearing.” Dkt. # 25. In said
pleading, petitioner claimed he needed to restrain Ms.
Cherrie Guay from “disposing of my excessive
legal property.” Additionally, petitioner filed another
document entitled “Motion Order Clerk for Copies at
Expense.” Dkt. # 26. In this motion, petitioner asked
the court to make the warden send him “stamped filed
copy of 2 letters” that he claims to have sent to the
warden; send a “stamped filed copy of the TRO and
motion.” Id., at p. 1. On November 27, 2015,
petitioner filed a motion to extend time to object to the
report and recommendation and to amend his complaint. Dkt. #s
28 and 29. In this motion, petitioner indicated he needed
more time to “adequately object to Report and
Recommendation; and to adequately amend original
complaint.” Petitioner further indicates when he amends
his complaint, the majority of the factual issues will have
arisen in the Western District of Oklahoma. These factual
issues purportedly will involve the “original
conspiracy to falsely arrest and maliciously prosecute
me.” Dkt. # 29, at p. 1. Petitioner further claims the
injunctive remedies he is seeking “will deal with
getting the records the cities and counties have”
regarding “fraud in the original conviction and other
crimes evidence used in that case.” Id, at p.
2. On December 3, 2015, a district court judge granted
petitioner's motion to extend the deadline to file
objections to the Report and Recommendation and petitioner
was given until January 4, 2016 to file his objections. Dkt.
# 30. Thereafter, on January 11, 2016, petitioner filed a
pleading entitled “Mot.Ext. Ti. Obj. Rept to Change
Venue from 01/04/16 - 02/04/16.” Dkt. # 31. On March
22, 2016, the court denied petitioner's request for more
time to object to the Report and Recommendation, adopted the
Report and Recommendation, and transferred this matter to
this court. Dkt. # 32.
March 23, 2016, the court clerk sent a letter to plaintiff
advising him that he had to complete USM-285 forms for each
named defendant and return the forms by April 6, 2016. Dkt. #
35. Thereafter, on June 5, 2017, a minute order was entered
directing the plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days
why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to prosecute the case. Petitioner was granted an
extension until July 12, 2017 to respond to the court's
order. Dkt. # 38. On July 17, 2017, Petitioner filed two more
motions to extend the time to show cause (Dkt. #s 39 and 40).
extent this case has been pending for more than two years and
petitioner has never completed any forms for the United
States Marshal to serve upon respondents despite having been
advised to complete said forms more than a year ago, this
court finds petitioner has failed to show good cause why this
action should not be dismissed without prejudice. As a
result, this court hereby DENIES
petitioner's motions to further extend the time to show
cause (Dkt. #s 39 and 40) and orders that this action be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. All
other pending motions are denied as moot.
 Ms. Guay was not previously
named as a respondent party.
The issues petitioner claims will be included in an amended
complaint are unrelated to the issues alleged in the original
petition for writ ...