1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SIRIA HERNANDEZ , Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY , Defendant. Civil Action No. 22-00266 (CKK)

MEMORADUM & ORDER Plaintiff , Siria Hernandez , appearing pro se and in forma pauperis , has been completely unresponsive in this matter for some time . On May 10, 202 3 , the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed eral Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and D.C. Local Civil Rule 83.23. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file any
response or to otherwise participate in this case

. Therefore, and for the reasons discussed below, this matter will be dismissed without prejudi ce for failure to prosecute.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff initiated this matter on January 31, 2022, by filing a Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, seeking relief under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. On May 17, 2022, the matter was assigned to this Court. Defendant the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) was fully served with process by July 22, 2022, see Returns of Service, ECF No. 9, and filed its Answer, ECF No. 12, on August 22, 2022. On September 13, 2022, the EPA filed a Status Report, ECF No. 13, indicating that it had completed its production to Plaintiff, and further request ing that Plaintiff review the production and then file a response indicating whether or not she was satisfied with the agency’s positio n.2 The Court agreed with this course of action, and entered a Minute Order on September 26, 2022, directing Plaintiff to file a response to the EPA’s Status Report by October 28, 2022 . If Plaintiff objected to the EPA’s final production, the EPA would th en propose a briefing schedule. See id

. However, Plaintiff’s October 28 th deadline elapsed, and she failed to file a response to the Status Report, to seek an extension, or to otherwise respond to the Court’s Minute Order. Consequently, on May 10, 2023, the Court entered an Order, ECF No. 16, directing Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, by June 9 , 2023, why this ac tion should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and D.C. Local Civil Rule 83.23. Plaintiff was explicitly warned that f ailure to respond could result in the dismissal of the case. See id

. at 2. And although the P l aintiff has not updated her address with the Court, s ee D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1), nor have any mailings been returned as undeliverable to her, the Court conducted its own search through the F ederal I nmate L ocator, and directed the Clerk of Court to send a copy of its Order to both Plaintiff’s address of record and another potential address. See id. The deadline to show

cause has since elapsed, and once again, P laintiff has failed respond to the Court’s Order , or to otherwise participate in this case.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to District of Columbia Local Civil Rule 83.23, “[a] dismissal for failure to prosecute may be ordered by the Court upon motion by an adverse party, or upon the Court’s own

m otion.” “A Rule 41(b) dismissal is proper if, in view of the entire procedural history of the case, the litigant has not manifested re asonable diligence in pursuing the cause.” Bomate v. Ford Motor
Co ., 761 F.2d 713, 714 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (per curiam). “A leng thy period of inactivity may . . . be enough to justify dismissal,” at least when “the plaintiff has been previously warned that [s he] must act with more diligence, or if he has failed to obey the rules or court orders [

. ] ” Smith

– Bey v.3 Cripe , 852 F.2d 592, 594 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ( quoting 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2370, at 205

– 07 (1971 ); citing Romandette v. Weetabix Co., Inc ., 807 F.2d 309, 312 (2d Cir. 1986); Cherry v. Brown

– Frazier

– Whitney , 548 F.2d 965, 969 (D.C. Cir. 1976) )

. The authority to dismiss suits for failure to prosecute has long been recognized as “necessary in order to prevent un due delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion” in the courts. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co ., 370 U.S. 626, 629

– 30 (1962). Further, “[t]he court’s authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to follow the court’s orde rs is not discarded simply because a plaintiff is proceeding pro se .” Allen v. United States , 277 F.R.D. 221, 223 (D.D.C. 2011). Although a pro se plaintiff is afforded some latitude in prosecuting h er case, “such leeway does not constitute a license for a plaintiff filing pro se to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” a court’s local rules, or a court’s orders. Moore v. Robbins , 24 F. Supp. 3d 88, 97 (D.D.C. 2014) (in ternal quotation marks omitted) (c iting Jarrell v. Tisch , 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987 ) )

. III. DISCUSSION Plaintiff has been absent from this case since March 24, 2022, more than 15 months ago.
See Prisoner Trust Accounting (“PTA”), ECF No. 4. She has failed to respond to the EPA’s Status Report and to two of this Court’ s O rders

. Given her failure to comply with this Court’s directives and h er “lengthy period of inactivity,” Smith

– Bey , 852 F.2d at 594, dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate. Put simply, Plaintiff h as “not manifested reasonable diligence in pursuing” this matter , see Bomate , 761 F.2d at 714 , and since s he has done nothing to suggest that

s he intends to prosecute his claims , they will be dismissed. Although Plaintiff has clearly fail ed to pursue this case, the C ourt is mindful of that the sanctions employed must be proportionate to the misconduct , and that less drastic sanctions other4 than outright dismissal must be considered. See Bonds v. District of Columbia , 93 F.3d 801, 809 (D.C. Cir. 1996) , cert. denied , 520 U.S. 1274 (1997). For that reason , and as noted, this Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to show cause , and further, it dismisses the Complaint without prejudice. See James v. Nationstar Mortgage , LLC , 323 F.R.D. 85 , 86 (D.D.C. 2017) (citations omitted) , appeal dismissed , No. 18 -7186, 2019 WL 2419122 ( D.C. Cir. Mar. 25, 2019 ).
IV. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby DISMISSES the C omplaint , ECF No. 1, without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and D.C. LCvR 83.23. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at both:
R14847-104 RRM Orlando 1 Residential Reentry Office 6303 County Road 500 Wildwood, FL 34875
AND
R14847-104 T allahassee Federal Correctional Institution Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. Box 5000 T allahassee , FL 32314
SO ORDERED.
____/s/__________________ COLLEEN KOLLAR

- KOTELLY Date: June 27, 2023 United States District Judge

1 Per the Federal Inmate Locator, this is Plaintiff’s most current address. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/(last visited and searched on 6/26/2023).