“This Court's Local Rules provide that dismissals for failure to prosecute should be made without prejudice unless the delay in prosecution impairs the opposing party's interests.” James v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 323 F.R.D. 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2017); see Loc. Civ. R.
Nwaneri's case will therefore be dismissed without prejudice.Cf. James v. Nationastar Mortg. LLC, 323 F.R.D. 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2017) (explaining that "dismissal without prejudice may, at times, mitigate the severity of the [dismissal] sanction"). Such an outcome "is less Draconian than treating an unopposed motion to dismiss as conceded, as this Court's rules permit," and "it may even be less prejudicial than reaching the substance of a motion to dismiss without the benefit of any opposing argument, which will also typically result in a decision on the merits."
The effect of this rule is to "provide that dismissals for failure to prosecute should be made without prejudice unless the delay in prosecution impairs the opposing party's interests ." James v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC , 323 F.R.D. 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2017) (emphasis added); see alsoEvans v. Howard Univ. , No. 17-cv-303, slip op. at 3 (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2017) ("Defendant does not allege that its interests will be impaired by dismissal without prejudice; accordingly, the Court sees no reason to depart from this default rule."). There are thus two arguably conflicting default rules.
As a result, he has “not manifested reasonable diligence in pursuing” his case, and dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate. See James v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 323 F.R.D. 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2017) (dismissing for failure to prosecute where plaintiff failed to serve the defendant or respond to multiple court orders).
See, e.g., James v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 323 F.R.D. 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2017). And the Court's orders
For that reason, and as noted, this Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to show cause, and further, it dismisses the Complaint without prejudice. See James v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 323 F.R.D. 85, 86 (D.D.C. 2017) (citations omitted), appeal dismissed, No. 18-7186, 2019 WL 2419122 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 25, 2019).
, dismissal without prejudice mitigates the severity of the sanction. See James v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 323 F.R.D. 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2017) (RDM). Here, especially in light of Plaintiff's Pro se status, Court dismisses Plaintiff's Amended Complaint without prejudice.
(dismissing a case that was stayed pending arbitration because, among other reasons, “almost a year ha[d] passed since plaintiffs were first ordered to proceed to arbitration” and they had failed to do so); Hyatt v. Lee, 232 F.Supp.3d 148, 151 (D.D.C. 2017) (“For the next eight years this case languished on this Court's docket without any action . . . .”); James v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 323 F.R.D. 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2017) (“[T]his Court has not heard from Plaintiffs since they indicated they wished to proceed pro se on May 17, 2017-more than seven months ago.”).
Even if Cole's complaint could be construed to assert any other claim besides those the Court has identified, the Court on its own motion would dismiss such claim without prejudice for failure to prosecute, given Cole's inactivity since February 2022 despite the Court's repeated orders advising her to act to protect her interests. See ECF No. 9; Minute Order of March 1, 2022; ECF No. 15; ECF No. 20; ECF No. 27; see also James v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 323 F.R.D. 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2017).
For that reason, this Court has provided Plaintiff with ample prior opportunity to respond, and now dismisses the Complaint without prejudice, which is less Draconian than treating an unopposed motion to dismiss as conceded or reaching the substance of a motion to dismiss without the benefit of any opposing argument, both of which typically result in a decision on the merits. See James v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 323 F.R.D. 85, 86 (D.D.C. 2017) (citations omitted). IV. CONCLUSION