Schlotzhauer v. City of Safford Police Department

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 30, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-00565
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jeffrey Schlotzhauer, No. CV-24-00565-TUC-JCH (P)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 City of Safford Police Department, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On April 23, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 16 (Doc. 1-3) but granted him 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint addressing the 17 identified deficiencies. Doc. 23 at 16–17. It has been more than two months since the 18 May 23 deadline to amend, but Plaintiff has taken no action. See generally Docket. 19 Plaintiffs have a general duty to prosecute their case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust 20 Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). A federal district 21 court has the power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash 22 R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). 23 To determine whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the case, 24 the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 25 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice 26 to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 27 (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 28 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 1 Here, the first and second factors favor dismissal. Plaintiffs lack of action in this matter has prevented the case from moving forward. On April 23, 2025, the Court granted || Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, but he did not do so, and the case has lain dormant 4|| since. The third factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because unreasonable delay creates 5 || a presumption of injury to the defense. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423. The fourth factor || typically weighs against dismissal. However, here, the Court has already addressed and || adjudicated significant portions of this case on the merits. See Doc. 23. Further, although 8 || the Court granted leave to amend certain claims, insofar as those remaining claims are grounded in sovereign citizen ideology, they are likely to be meritless.! The fifth factor 10 || requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. Alternative 11 |} sanctions appear futile here. Plaintiff has taken no action in this matter since February 6, 2025. No less-drastic alternative than dismissal is warranted under these circumstances. 13 || The Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Clerk || of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 17 Dated this 29th day of July, 2025. 18 19 4) 0 . | HK Aa— 1 / / John C. Hinderaker _/United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27} 1 Arguments based on sovereign citizen ideology have been “consistently and □□□□□□□□□ rejected by every branch of the government for decades. . . . [and] advancement of such 28 utterly meritless arguments is now the basis for serious sanctions imposed on civil litigants who raise them.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986). _2-