Cadena-Powell v. Lujan-Grisham, 2:24-cv-00698

Ryder T. Cadena-Powell, a prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state officials.
He sought to proceed without prepayment of fees by filing an in forma pauperis (IFP) motion, but did not include the required six-month inmate account statement.
The court ordered Cadena-Powell to submit this statement within thirty days, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.
Cadena-Powell did not comply with the order, nor did he respond or show cause for the failure.
This non-compliance prompted the court to consider dismissal for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules/orders.
The court ultimately dismissed the complaint without prejudice and denied the IFP motion as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to provide six-month inmate account statement	Not addressed	Not addressed	Dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply
Dismissal for failure to prosecute/compliance	N/A (no response)	N/A (no response)	Dismissal without prejudice was appropriate
Adequacy of warning before dismissal	N/A	N/A	Court provided adequate warning (Cure Order)
IFP Motion mootness	Sought IFP status	N/A	IFP Motion denied as moot post-dismissal

AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2009) (district court's discretion to sanction parties for failure to prosecute or comply with procedural rules)
Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2003) (courts may dismiss sua sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders)
Davis v. Miller, 571 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 2009) (dismissals under Rule 41(b) can be with or without prejudice)
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) (criteria for dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b))
Rogers v. Andrus Transp. Servs., 502 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2007) (prosecution of one's claim is fundamental to litigation)