Schaefer v. United States Postal Service

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 7, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2020-2315
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) JASON PAUL SCHAEFER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 20-cv-2315 (TSC) ) ) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ) ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff filed this suit on August 19, 2020, alleging that Defendant U.S. Postal

Service violated the Freedom of Information Act and Administrative Procedure Act by

withholding records pertaining to its investigation of Plaintiff. Compl., ECF No. 1

at 3–8. Defendant filed an Answer, ECF No. 9, and a motion for summary judgment,

ECF No. 17. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, this court issued a Fox/Neal Order

“advising plaintiff to file his motion for summary judgment and combined response to

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment by 5/1/2021 or court may treat Defendant’s

motion as conceded.” ECF No. 18. The Clerk mailed the Order to Plaintiff. Id.

Following multiple motions for extensions of time, ECF Nos. 19, 23, and other

motions practice, ECF Nos. 21, 26, the court stayed the action pending Plaintiff’s

prison transfer, Minute Order, Oct. 26, 2021. Plaintiff moved to lift the stay on April

24, 2023, which the court granted, Minute Order, May 16, 2023. This court then filed a

Page 1 of 3 second Fox/Neal Order “advising plaintiff to file his motion for summary judgment and

combined response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment by 7/14/2023 or

court may treat Defendant’s motion as conceded.” ECF No. 42. The Clerk mailed

copies of both orders to Plaintiff. Minute Order, May 16, 2023; ECF No. 42. The

deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment has now

elapsed by more than three months, and the motion has been pending for two and a half

years.

This court has “inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for a plaintiff’s

failure to prosecute.” Peterson v. Archstone Cmtys. LLC, 637 F.3d 416, 418 (D.C. Cir.

2011); Local Civil Rule 83.23 (“A dismissal for failure to prosecute may be ordered by

the Court … upon the Court’s own motion.”). “Such a dismissal is proper if, in view of

the history of the litigation, the litigant has failed to exercise reasonable diligence in

pursuing the case.” Ames v. Standard Oil Co., 108 F.R.D. 299, 301 (D.D.C. 1985).

This is one such case. Plaintiff has not complied with instructions to respond to

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment despite multiple court orders mailed to his

address on file. This court has repeatedly granted Plaintiff extensions to ensure he has

the time and resources necessary to draft his response to Defendant’s motion. See

Minute Order, April 30, 2023; Minute Order, August 4, 2021; Minute Order, Oct. 26,

2021; Minute Order, May 16, 2023. In failing to file a response despite these

opportunities, Plaintiff has “engaged in a ‘course of protracted neglect.’” Ames, 108

F.R.D. at 302 (citation omitted). Dismissal for failure to prosecute is therefore

appropriate.

Page 2 of 3 Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

prosecute. An Order will accompany this Opinion.

Date: November 7, 2023

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3