The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ricardo M. Urbina United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
The plaintiff, Thomas Stephenson, is suing United States Park Police Officers John Cox and William Mossburg (collectively "the defendants") for damages caused by their arrest and detention of him. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants arrested and searched him without probable cause and therefore violated the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal search, seizure, and arrest. The defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)-(2), (4)-(6). For the following reasons, the court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss.
On April 22, 1999, the plaintiff noticed police officers arresting one of his tenants. Am. Compl. ¶ 3. The plaintiff, a member of the Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD"), offered his assistance to defendant Officer Cox. Id. ¶¶ 1, 3. The plaintiff identified himself as an MPD officer and produced his identification. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. After exa mining the plaintiff's identification, Officer Cox arrested the plaintiff for impersonating a police officer and then searched him. Id. ¶ 6. Defendant Officer Mossburg also participated in the arrest. Id. ¶ 7. The defendants released the plaintiff after about 90 minutes, once they learned that he was, in fact, an officer with the MPD. Compl. ¶ 19.
The plaintiff filed this action, pro se, on August 9, 2000. Id. at 1. After obtaining counsel, the plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint. Pl.'s Mot for Leave to Amend. The court granted the motion and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint *fn1 on November 20, 2001. Mem. Op. dated Nov. 20, 2001; Am. Compl. at 1.
On December 4, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)-(2), (4)-(6). Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss at 1. The defendants argue that the complaint is untimely, that the plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim, that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that the plaintiff has not properly served the defendants with either the complaint or the amended complaint. Id. at 4-9. The plaintiff, represented by counsel, failed to respond to the defendants' motion. Only after the court filed an order to show cause why the court should not treat the motion as conceded, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(b), did the plaintiff respond -- five months late. Order dated Apr. 25, 2002; Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss.
A. Legal Standard for Treating Motions As Conceded
Local Civil Rule 7.1(b) requires an opposing party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to a motion within 11 days of the filing of the motion, or the court may treat the motion as conceded. *fn2 Giraldo v. Dep't of Justice, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 13685, at *2 (D.C. Cir. July 8, 2002) (per curiam) (citing Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bender, 127 F.3d 58, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). When a party requests an extension of this deadline before the expiration of the 11 days, the court may exercise its discretion and extend the 11-day time period "for cause shown." FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b). If the party requests an enlargement after the prescribed time has expired, the party must show cause and "excusable neglect." FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (emphasis added). A district court has considerable discretion in deciding how to maintain control of its docket. Jackson v. Finnegan, 101 F.3d 145, 154 (D.C. Cir. 1996). When presented with a response filed late and without a request for an extension of time, a district court may reject the response and, consequently, treat the motion as conceded. Bender, 127 F.3d at 67-68 (treating a motion for summary judgment as conceded, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 108(b) *fn3 ).
A party who fails to file a timely response "is deemed to have waived his opposition to the [motion]." Weil v. Seltzer, 873 F.2d 1453, 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (discussing a motion in limine) (cited by Bender, 127 F.3d at 67-68, in the context of a motion for summary judgment). Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit has stated, "[w]here the district court relies on the absence of a response as a basis for treating the motion as conceded, we honor its enforcement of the rule." Twelve John Does v. Dist. of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, when a plaintiff files a response to a motion to dismiss but fails to address certain arguments made by the defendant, the court may treat those arguments as conceded, even when the result is dismissal of the entire case. Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22054, at *17 (D.D.C. July 23, 1999), overruled on other grounds, 216 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Hanson v. Greenspan, 1991 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17451, at *11 (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 1991).
B. The Plaintiff Has Conceded the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
The plaintiff, while represented by counsel, has twice failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1(b). First, the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendants' motion within the time prescribed. LCvR 7.1(b); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(e). Second, when the plaintiff finally did respond to the ...