WASHINGTON v. BACON
MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting as conceded 4 Defendant's motion to dismiss. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 4/3/2017. (lcrc1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MONICA EARL WASHINGTON,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Action No.:
Re Document No.:
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Monica Earl Washington, proceeding pro se, brought this case alleging that her
former co-worker filed a false incident report against her. Defendant removed this case to this
Court and substituted the United States as the sole defendant. Notice of Removal of a Civil
Action, ECF No. 1. On February 2, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and lack of service of process, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(5). Motion to Dismiss (MTD), ECF No. 4.
This Court’s Fox/Neal order of February 3, 2017 explained that Ms. Washington was
required to file a response to the motion to dismiss by March 6, 2017, and that the Court could
treat the motion to dismiss as conceded if Ms. Washington did not respond. Order, ECF No. 5;
see also Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507, 509 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (requiring a district
court to inform a pro se party that “failure to respond . . . may result in the district court granting
the motion and dismissing the case”). To date, Ms. Washington has not responded or requested
additional time to respond.
Under Local Civil Rule 7(b), if any party fails to file a response to a motion within the
prescribed time, “the Court may treat the motion as conceded.” LCvR 7(b). Although the D.C.
Circuit recently expressed concern with the interaction of Local Civil Rule 7(b) and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), it ultimately “reluctantly affirm[ed] the [district] court’s decision to
grant the motion to dismiss the complaint,” but objected to the district court’s decision to do so
with prejudice. Cohen v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of D.C., 819 F.3d 476, 480 (D.C. Cir.
2016). The D.C. Circuit also reaffirmed that it had never found “a ‘straightforward application of
Local Rule 7(b)’ [to be] an abuse of discretion.” Id. (quoting Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d
at 1294); see also Jordan v. Ormond, No. 15-7151, 2016 WL 4098823, at *1 (D.C. Cir. July 22,
2016), (unpublished per curiam opinion) (holding that “the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing appellant’s complaint pursuant to [Local Civil Rule] 7(b)” when the
plaintiff conceded the motion to dismiss). In this case the application of Local Civil Rule 7(b) is
straightforward because Ms. Washington has failed to make any response—unlike in Cohen
where the plaintiff eventually filed a belated opposition and amended complaint, see Cohen, 819
F.3d at 478.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is
GRANTED AS CONCEDED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint and this civil
action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: April 3, 2017
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?