Kim v. Doe

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-3266
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SOYEON KIM,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 24-3266 (RDM)

JOHN DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendants, John Doe and Anthony Blinken, filed a motion to dismiss this case on

February 3, 2025, arguing that dismissal was required because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim

and because this Court lacked jurisdiction. Dkt. 9. Under this Court’s local rules, a party

opposing a motion must serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition

within 14 days of the date of service of the motion. Local Civil Rule 7(b). In accordance with

that rule, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss was due on February 17, 2025.

On February 19, 2025, the Court advised Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, that

she had missed that deadline, and the Court gave her an additional week—until February 26,

2025—to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. See Min. Entry (Feb. 19, 2025). The Court

cautioned Plaintiff that, if she failed to respond “by that date, the Court may (1) treat the motion

as conceded; (2) rule on Defendant’s motion based on Defendant’s arguments alone and without

considering Plaintiff’s arguments; or (3) dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute.” Id.

Plaintiff failed to file a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss on or before February

26, 2026, despite the Court’s clear direction and sua sponte extension of time. “District courts

have inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or otherwise comply with a court order.” Peterson v. Archstone Communities LLC, 637 F.3d 416,

418 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Court concludes that dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted

here. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and failed to respond to the

Court’s order warning her that, if she failed to correct that omission in a timely manner, the

Court might dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Out of an abundance of caution, the

Court has now waited an additional week, yet Plaintiff has disregarded the Court’s order and has

failed even to acknowledge Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The Court will, accordingly, DISMISS the action without prejudice for failure to

prosecute, and will DENY Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 9, as moot.

A separate order will issue.

/s/ Randolph D. Moss RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge

Dated: March 5, 2025