Evans v. Howard University Hospital
Civil Action No. 2017-0303
| D.D.C. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Elaina Evans, proceeding pro se, sued Howard University Hospital alleging unlawful termination after extended leave for family and health reasons (complaint filed Feb. 17, 2017).
- Defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on April 18, 2017; Court set an initial response deadline of May 17, 2017 and granted an extension to July 17, 2017.
- Evans failed to file an opposition by the extended deadline; the Court gave an additional three-week extension and warned dismissal for failure to prosecute.
- Plaintiff did not respond to the subsequent order, did not seek further extensions, and made no filings or communications for approximately six months.
- Defendant filed a notice requesting dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); the Court, noting prolonged inactivity and prior warnings, dismissed the case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) and Local Civil Rule 83.23 (Nov. 13, 2017).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted | Evans offered no opposition or justification for delay | Howard argued dismissal under Rule 41(b) was appropriate due to Evans’s noncompliance and inactivity | Court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and Local Civ. R. 83.23 |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice | N/A — Evans made no request on remedy | Howard sought dismissal (requested with prejudice) but did not assert prejudice from dismissal without prejudice | Court dismissed without prejudice in accordance with Local Civ. R. 83.23 because defendant did not show prejudice and plaintiff is pro se |
| Whether lesser sanctions were adequate | N/A (no response or engagement from Evans) | Defendant implied dismissal necessary given prolonged inactivity | Court held dismissal appropriate given prior warnings and lengthy inactivity; lesser sanctions would not serve justice |
| Whether court may act sua sponte or on defendant motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute | N/A | Howard relied on Rule 41(b) and applicable precedent allowing dismissal on motion or sua sponte | Court relied on Rule 41(b) authority and dismissed (noting courts may dismiss sua sponte or on motion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Archstone Cmtys. LLC, 637 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir.) (dismissal under Rule 41(b) may be ordered on motion or sua sponte)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (courts may dismiss for failure to prosecute to prevent undue delay and congestion)
- Bomate v. Ford Motor Co., 761 F.2d 713 (D.C. Cir.) (dismissal justified where plaintiff lacks reasonable diligence in prosecution)
- Smith-Bey v. Cripe, 852 F.2d 592 (D.C. Cir.) (lengthy inactivity and prior warnings support dismissal)
- Angellino v. Royal Family Al-Saud, 688 F.3d 771 (D.C. Cir.) (dismissal is a harsh sanction typically reserved for egregious dilatory conduct)
- Bristol Petroleum Corp. v. Harris, 901 F.2d 165 (D.C. Cir.) (dismissal appropriate when lesser sanctions would not serve justice)