Allen v. United States, 277 F.R.D. 221

Plaintiff Stanley J. Allen filed a tort action in DC Superior Court, which was removed to this court in May 2010.
Plaintiff alleged Dr. Michael Smith (fellow DoD employee) committed assault, battery, IIED, and NIED.
The court initially treated Allen’s “request for dismissal” as a voluntary dismissal but found it did not satisfy Rule 41(a).
Allen later opposed, but did not file a timely opposition to defendant United States’ motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b).
Counsel withdrew from representation; the court granted an extension for Allen to respond but Allen remained silent, leading to a pending Rule 41(b) dismissal inquiry.
The court ultimately dismisses the case without prejudice for Allen’s failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) with prejudice is warranted	Allen argued he sought dismissal and should not be penalized beyond the requested relief.	United States contends dismissal with prejudice is appropriate due to failure to respond and comply with orders.	Partially granted; dismissal with prejudice denied
Whether the case should be dismissed without prejudice given initial Rule 41(a) considerations	Plaintiff’s initial “request for dismissal” suggested without-prejudice relief under Rule 41(a)(2).	Court warned and required proper Rule 41(a) procedure; failure to comply warrants dismissal.	Dismissal without prejudice granted under Rule 41(b) and Local Rule 83.23
Whether the court had authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute pro se plaintiff	Plaintiff proceeded pro se but remained subject to rules like any other party.	Court may dismiss for failure to prosecute, to follow orders, or to comply with rules.	Authority recognized; dismissal based on failure to prosecute.

Bristol Petroleum Corp. v. Harris, 901 F.2d 165 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (dismissal appropriate when lesser sanctions won't serve justice)