Is it a violation of due-process to involuntarily dismiss a case with prejudice for a party's failure to pay a monetary sanction that bears no relevance to the merits of the case?

Questions Presented Oregon allows a court within its state to involuntarily dismiss an action or claim for failure of a plaintiff to comply with any order of its courts (Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure ‘ORCP’ 54(b)(1)). This unrestrained power is fundamentally in conflict and runs afoul with the protections of the United States Constitution, and the United States Supreme Court’s rulings to protect the citizens’ rights to due process (Hovey v. Elliott). Dismissal for not complying with an order related to failure to prosecute an action, (e.g., failure to serve the summons and complaint, comply with pre-trial rules) or order related to discovery (e.g., depositions, subpoenas) bearing on the merits of the case is one thing, but failing to comply with any type of order is another. ORCP 54(b)(1) must read with the due process requirement of Hovey in mind — that there must be a nexus between the violation of the order and either diligent prosecution of the case or the merits of the case to trigger the court's inherent authority to dismiss an action. This Court has an opportunity in this case to define (or to uphold its precedents in the face of a clear departure on) the limits of authority to which a court has the power to involuntarily dismiss a case. The questions presented are: 1) Is it a violation of due process to involuntarily dismiss a case with prejudice for a party’s failure to pay a monetary sanction that bears no relevance to the merits of the case? 2) Is it a violation of due process and equal protection to involuntarily dismiss a case with prejudice for a party’s failure to pay a monetary sanction who has been found indigent by the prosecuting court? 3) Is a State authorized to make Jaws that contain unrestrained determiners (i.e., “any”) allowing its judiciary to act outside the guaranteed protections to due process and equal protection provided by the United States Constitution? | 3 lI. Statement of