In any event, it is patent that the district court had ample reason to dismiss Mr. Jimenez's petition: he never objected to the State's proposed dismissal order and failed to respond to the court's order to show cause. Adams v. Wiley, 298 F. App'x 767, 769 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) ("[I]t was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to dismiss [the petitioner's] action, as he had failed to prosecute and to comply with the court's orders."). In light of Mr. Jimenez's repeated failures to comply with court orders, reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness of the district court's dismissal of his petition under Rule 41(b).
Further, “[a] district court possesses broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss a petition without prejudice for failing to comply with court orders.” Id. at 735-36; see also Thornton v. Estep, 209 Fed.Appx. 755, 756-57 (10th Cir. 2006); Adams v. Wiley, 298 Fed.Appx. 767, 768-69 (10th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, dismissal of this matter is warranted. See LCvR 3.3(e) (prescribing that if an in forma pauperis application is denied, the litigant's “[f]ailure to pay the filing fees by the date specified, to seek a timely extension within which to make the payment, or to show cause in writing by the date specified for payment” “shall be cause for dismissal of the action without prejudice to refiling”); Sears v. Dist. Att'y, No. CIV-17-1195-HE, 2017 WL 7669372 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 28, 2017) (R. & R.), adopted, 2018 WL 837607 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 12, 2018).
Further, “[a] district court possesses broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss a petition without prejudice for failing to comply with court orders.” Id. at 735-36; see also Thornton v. Estep, 209 Fed.Appx. 755, 756-57 (10th Cir. 2006); Adams v. Wiley, 298 Fed.Appx. 767, 768-69 (10th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, dismissal of this matter is warranted. See LCvR 3.3(e) (prescribing that if an in forma pauperis application is denied, the litigant's “[f]ailure to pay the filing fees by the date specified, to seek a timely extension within which to make the payment, or to show cause in writing by the date specified for payment” “shall be cause for dismissal of the action without prejudice to refiling”).
Id. at 735-36; see also Thornton v. Estep, 209 Fed.Appx. 755, 756-57 (10th Cir. 2006); Adams v. Wiley, 298 Fed.Appx. 767, 768-69 (10th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, dismissal of this matter is warranted. See LCvR 3.3(e) (prescribing that if an in forma pauperis application is denied, the litigant's “[f]ailure to pay the filing fees by the date specified, to seek a timely extension within which to make the payment, or to show cause in writing by the date specified for payment” “shall be cause for dismissal of the action without prejudice to refiling”); Sears v. Dist. Att'y, No. CIV-17-1195-HE, 2017 WL 7669372 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 28, 2017) (R. & R.), adopted, 2018 WL 837607 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 12, 2018).
Further, “[a] district court possesses broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss a petition without prejudice for failing to comply with court orders.” Id. at 735-36; see also Thornton v. Estep, 209 Fed.Appx. 755, 756-57 (10th Cir. 2006); Adams v. Wiley, 298 Fed.Appx. 767, 768-69 (10th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, dismissal of this matter is warranted.
Id. at 735-36; see, e.g., Thornton v. Estep, 209 Fed.Appx. 755, 756-57 (10th Cir. 2006) (finding no abuse of discretion in district court's dismissal of habeas petition for failure to prosecute when petitioner failed to respond to court's order and to comply with local rule); Adams v. Wiley, 298 Fed.Appx. 767, 768-69 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal of habeas action for failure to prosecute and comply with magistrate judge's order where “despite being warned of the consequence that his action would be dismissed, [the petitioner] failed to submit the forms as ordered by the court”). In addition, “Petitioner's lack of interest in complying with the Court's Orders combined with the Court's attempt to manage and control its caseload warrants a dismissal of the action without prejudice.”
See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) "has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court's orders."). See also Fletcher v. Raemisch, ___ F. App'x ___, No. 19-1046, 2019 WL 1552556, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 10, 2019) (holding that dismissal of amended complaint was warranted for failure to follow rule governing pleadings); Adams v. Wiley, 298 F. App'x 767, 769 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that dismissal of prisoner's habeas action for failure to prosecute and to comply with court's orders was not abuse of discretion when prisoner, despite being warned that his action would be dismissed, failed to submit proper forms as ordered by court). "[A] motion will be considered under Rule 59(e), when it involves reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits."
Jackson v. Los Lunas Cmty. Program, 880 F.3d 1176, 1191 (10th Cir. 2018) (citing Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 2000)). Adams v. Wiley, 298 F. App'x 767, 768 (10th Cir. 2008). In re Arenas, 535 B.R. 845, 849 (10th Cir. BAP 2015) (quoting Moothart v. Bell, 21 F.2d 1499, 1504 (10th Cir. 1994)).