Williams v. Fedex

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: January 31, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-0604
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KEVIN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 24-00604 (AHA) v.

FEDEX,

Defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

Plaintiff Kevin Williams filed this action against Defendant FedEx in D.C. Superior Court

on January 30, 2024. The complaint stated that Williams sought “25 million from the courts for

[t]heft []negligence and emotional [distress].” ECF No. 1-1 at 4. It included no other allegations.

After removing the case to this Court, FedEx moved for a more definite statement. ECF

No. 4. The Court granted the motion, concluding that the complaint lacked sufficient “factual

information to make clear the substance of the claim.” ECF No. 8 at 3 (quoting Caribbean Broad.

Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless P.L.C., 148 F.3d 1080, 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). The Court ordered

Williams to file an amended complaint by September 10, 2024, and warned that failure to do so

could result in dismissal with prejudice. Id. at 4. 1

The Court may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute “upon the Court’s own motion.”

Local Civ. R. 83.23; see Peterson v. Archstone Communities LLC, 637 F.3d 416, 418 (D.C. Cir.

1 One of the Court’s prior orders was returned as undeliverable when mailed to the address provided by Plaintiff. See ECF Nos. 7, 9. The Court’s subsequent order to file an amended complaint does not appear to have been returned as undeliverable. See ECF No. 8. In the event Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of an updated address, dismissal is still warranted. See Hatton v. Mehrotra, No. CV 22-1587, 2022 WL 17146752, at *1 & n.1 (D.D.C. Nov. 22, 2022). 2011) (“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.”). Here, Williams has not filed an amended

complaint or otherwise sought an extension to do so, despite the deadline and several more months

passing and despite the Court’s warning that his case may be dismissed. The Court accordingly

dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Hatton v. Mehrotra, No.

CV 22-1587, 2022 WL 17146752, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 22, 2022).

A separate order consistent with this decision accompanies this memorandum opinion.

SO ORDERED.

AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge

Date: January 31, 2025