Ghassan v. Biden ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OMAR GHASSAN,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 21-cv-3252 (FYP)
JOSEPH BIDEN, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff Omar Ghassan filed an Amended Complaint against
defendants Joseph Biden, FBI Director Christopher Wray, the Department of Homeland
Security, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, the FBI Director Las Vegas
Office, and the Las Vegas Police Department. See ECF No. 4. Plaintiff claims that defendants
are targeting him and attempting to kill him and his family. Id. On February 8, 2022, Defendant
Las Vegas Police Department filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See ECF No. 8. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the
Court subsequently issued an order advising Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court,
and setting the deadline of February 23, 2022, for Plaintiff to file his response. See Order, dated
February 9, 2022 (citing Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507, 509 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Neal v. Kelly,
963 F.2d 453, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). The Court further cautioned Plaintiff that failure to respond
could result in the Court granting the Motion as conceded. Id. At a hearing on February 23,
2022, the Court extended the time for Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Dismiss to March 2,
2022.
Plaintiff neither filed an opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, nor requested an
extension of time to respond to the Motion, within the time allowed in the Court’s Order. Local
Civil Rule 7(b) provides if a memorandum in opposition to a party’s motion is not filed within
the prescribed time, “the Court may treat the motion as conceded.” Rule 7(b) “is a docket-
management tool that facilitates efficient and effective resolution of motions.” Texas v. United
States, 798 F.3d 1108, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291,
1294 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). “The Court need not provide notice before enforcing the rule or offer a
party an opportunity to explain its failure to comply.” Vemuri v. Napolitano, 771 F. Supp. 2d 27,
28 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Fox, 389 F.3d at 1295).
Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Motion, pursuant to Local Civil Rule
7(b), it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as conceded.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
FLORENCE Y. PAN
United States District Judge
Date: March 8, 2022