Brandon P. Hronich v. Andrea Hernandez and Chris Pena

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

BRANDON P. HRONICH,

Plaintiff, v. No. 2:26-cv-00820-KRS ANDREA HERNANDEZ and CHRIS PENA,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

NOTICE REGARDING PROSECUTION OF CASE AND SERVICE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 4, filed March 18, 2026 (“Application”), and Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed March 18, 2026 (“Complaint”), and Plaintiff’s Complaint for Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Ultra Vires Action, and First Amendment Free Exercise Violations, Doc. 8, filed April 9, 2026 (“Amended Complaint”).

Order Denying Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis The Court notified Plaintiff that it appears from the information Plaintiff provided in his Application to proceed in forma pauperis that Plaintiff is able to pay the $405.00 fee for initiating this case and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not deny his Application. See Order to Show Cause at 2, Doc. 5, filed March 20, 2026. Instead of showing cause, Plaintiff paid the $405.00 fee. See Doc. 7, filed April 9, 2026. The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 4, filed March 18, 2026, as moot.

Notice Regarding Prosecution of Case and Service Plaintiff has an obligation to prosecute this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“Tf the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action’). Plaintiff also has an obligation to serve Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service”). “Although the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file a motion to dismiss, the Rule 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.” Gustafson v. Luke, 696 Fed.Appx. 352, 354 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2026.

KEVINR.SWEAZEA □□□ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE