UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KEVIN HATTON , Plaintiff ,

v.
ANUJA MEHROTRA , et al. Defendant s

. Civil Action No. 22

- 1587 (RDM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION In April 2022, pro se Plaintiff Kevin Hatton filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the
Distr ict of Columbia, naming the Court Services and Offender Super vision Agency ( “ CSOSA ” ) and Community Super vision Office r ( “ CSO ” ) Anuja Mehro tra as Defendants. Dkt. 1

- 2 at 4

. The complaint stated: “ I have been on a 4 p .m. curfew with a GPS for 22 months. While employed [,] I am co nsta ntly har assed and denied my rights to op [] erate my music career
. . . . I am also a victim of false impri sonment

. . . [and ] was
. . . framed as non

- compli[ant] with no documented proof. ” Id. He seeks $50,000 in dama ges
. Id. at 25.
CSOSA and Mehrotra removed the case to federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442 , Dkt. 1, and then moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to effect proper s ervice under Rule 12 (b)(5) , Dk t. 9.
Defendants assert that the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction preclude s this Court ’ s ex ercise of subject

- mat ter jurisdiction , id. at 7, and that Plaintiff ha s not p roper ly served the federal
defendants as required under Rule 4 , id. at 9. The Court issued a F ox / Neal order, advising
Plaintiff that , if he “ fail[ed] to respond to Defendant ’ s motion in the time provided, the Court may (1) treat the motion as conceded; (2) r ule on Defendant s ’ motion based on Defendants ’2 arguments alone a nd without considering Plaintiff ’ s argum ents; or (3) dismiss Plaintiff ’ s claims for failure to prosecute. ” Dkt. 10 at 1 (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff ’ s opposition to the
motion to dismiss was due on October 11, 2022; that date passed without Plain tiff filing any opposition. On Oc tober 2 5, 2022, the Court noted that Plaintiff had not responded to
Defendants ’ motion and that Plaintiff had not appeared in the case since it was removed on June 3, 2022. See Min. Order (Oct . 25, 2022). At that time, t he Court again ordered Plaintiff to respond to the pending motion to dismiss

— this time, on or before November 15, 2022

— and
adm onished Plaintiff that failure to respon d to the motion or to otherwise respond to the Court ’ s
order would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Id. A copy of the Court ’ s October 25,
2022 order was returned to the Court as undeli verable on November 17, 2022. 1 See Dkt. 11. The Court may dismiss a case for f ailure to prosecute “ upon the Court ’ s own motion. ”
Loc al Civ. R. 83.23 ; Bristol Petrol

. Corp. v. Harris , 901 F.2d 165, 167 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ( “‘[W]hen circumstances make such an action appropriate,’ a district court may dismiss an action on its own motion because of a party’s failure to comply with court orders designed to ensure orderly prosecution of the c ase.” (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co. , 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962) ) )

. Furthermore, the Court may order a party to “file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition” to a motion, and, “[i]f such a memorandum is not filed within the prescribed time, the Court may treat the motion as conceded.” Loc al Civ. R. 7(b). Because Plaint iff (1) has had
no contact with this Court and has taken no action in this case after filing his complaint ; (2) has

1 It is Plaintiff ’ s obligation to keep this Court appr ised of his c urrent address. This Court ’ s local rule s provide that “ [n]otice of a change in address . . . of . . . a party not represented by an attorney must be filed within 14 days of the change. Unless changed by notice filed with the Clerk, the address and telephone number of a party or an attorney noted on the first filing shall be conclusively taken as the last known a ddress and telephone number of the party or attorney. ” Loc a l Civ. R. 5.1(c)(1).3 failed to respond to Defendant s ’ long

- pending motion to dismiss; and (3) has disregarded the
Court ’ s orders, th e Court will dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. See Bristol Petrol

. Corp. , 901 F. 2d at 167

. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. A separate order will issue. /s/ Randolph D. Moss RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judg e

Date: November 22, 2022