Elgabrowny v. Central Intelligence Agency, Civil Action No. 2017-0066

Plaintiff Ibrahim Elgabrowny, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a FOIA and Privacy Act suit on January 11, 2017 against multiple agencies, including the CIA and the State Department.
The court resolved several summary-judgment motions: FBI and EOUSA were granted summary judgment; some CIA/State Department claims remained pending for further processing and briefing.
The case was stayed during COVID-19; the stay was lifted in June 2021 after defendants reported ongoing processing. The court sought a briefing schedule after Plaintiff was released from custody.
Plaintiff failed to provide updated contact information as ordered (violating D.C. Local Rules) and did not respond to the court’s Order to Show Cause; mailed orders were returned as undeliverable.
Defendants moved to dismiss for want of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and D.C. LCvR 83.23; Plaintiff did not oppose or otherwise respond.
The court found prolonged inactivity and noncompliance with court orders and local rules justified dismissal for failure to prosecute and entered dismissal without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and D.C. LCvR 83.23	No response; Plaintiff did not oppose or justify inactivity	Move to dismiss for want of prosecution based on prolonged inactivity and failure to update contact info or comply with orders	Granted: dismissal for failure to prosecute due to lack of diligence and noncompliance
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice or without prejudice	No response	Defendants did not argue that Plaintiff's delay impaired their interests	Dismissal without prejudice per D.C. LCvR 83.23 (no showing of prejudice by defendants)

Bomate v. Ford Motor Co., 761 F.2d 713 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Rule 41(b) dismissal appropriate when plaintiff fails to show reasonable diligence)
Smith–Bey v. Cripe, 852 F.2d 592 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (lengthy inactivity and failure to obey orders can justify dismissal)
Romandette v. Weetabix Co., Inc., 807 F.2d 309 (2d Cir. 1986) (periods of inactivity may warrant dismissal under Rule 41(b))
Cherry v. Brown–Frazier–Whitney, 548 F.2d 965 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (consideration of plaintiff's inaction when evaluating dismissal)
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (dismissal for failure to prosecute is necessary to prevent undue delay and congestion)
Allen v. United States, 277 F.R.D. 221 (D.D.C. 2011) (pro se status does not excuse failure to comply with rules and orders)
Moore v. Robbins, 24 F. Supp. 3d 88 (D.D.C. 2014) (pro se litigants afforded latitude but not license to ignore rules and orders)