UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) ELIAS HAILU, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 24-cv-02575 (APM) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I.

Pro se Plaintiff Elias Hailu is a former inmate of the D.C. Department of Corrections.

On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the District of Columbia, alleging

that during his incarceration he was not allowed to attend, or otherwise prevented from attending,

weekly Islamic religious services.

Now before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Want of

Prosecution. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss [hereinafter Def.’s Mot.], ECF No. 18. For the reasons

that follow, the court grants Defendant’s motion.

I.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a defendant to “move to dismiss the action

or any claim against it” when “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a

court order.” Dismissal for want of prosecution “is proper if, in view of the entire procedural

history of the case, the litigant has not manifested reasonable diligence in pursuing the cause.”

Bomate v. Ford Motor Co.,

(D.C. Cir. 1985) (upholding dismissal of action for

want of prosecution where the plaintiff’s lack of diligence and non-compliance with court directives caused repeated discovery and trial delays). A dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates as

an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Plaintiff has demonstrated a lack of diligence in prosecuting his case. To date, Plaintiff

has failed to comply with two of this court’s orders. On March 31, 2025, after Defendant

answered the complaint, ECF No. 11, this court filed an Order setting an Initial Scheduling

Conference for May 8, 2025, Order, ECF No. 12. That Order required Plaintiff to meet and confer

with Defendant to file the joint report required under Local Civil Rule 16.3 and Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 26(f). Id. at 1. Plaintiff failed to satisfy this obligation, despite Defendant’s

multiple attempts to reach him by both mail and e-mail. Def.’s Mot., Def.’s Mem. of P&A in

Supp. of Def.’s Mot. [hereinafter Def.’s Mem.], ECF No. 18-1, at 1–2, see also Def.’s Mot, Exs.

1–3. Plaintiff thereafter failed to appear for the Initial Scheduling Conference on May 8, 2025.

The court then entered a discovery schedule under which the parties were to exchange

initial disclosures by May 12, 2025, and submit a Joint Status Report regarding the status of

discovery by June 26, 2025. Order, ECF No. 14. Plaintiff failed to make the required disclosures

by the deadline or participate in preparing the Joint Status Report, notwithstanding Defendant’s

multiple attempts to connect with him by mail and e-mail. Def.’s Mem. at 2; see also Def.’s Mot.,

Exs. 4–5.

As a result of Plaintiff’s lack of diligence, Defendant filed the instant motion on June 26,

2025. The court subsequently entered an Order advising Plaintiff to respond to the motion by

August 1, 2025, or risk having this matter dismissed. Order, ECF No. 19. Plaintiff filed no

response.

Given Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case, including his multiple violations of court

orders and missed deadlines, the court grants Defendant’s motion.

2 III.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Want

of Prosecution, ECF No. 18, is granted. This matter is hereby dismissed. A final, appealable

order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Dated: August 7, 2025 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge

3