Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02441/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02441-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Adam C. Cytron, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PHH Mortgage Corporation, USAA Federal 

Savings Bank, Jason P Sherman, Kari 

Sheehan, and Daniel C Schmidt, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-02441-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 The Court entered an order on December 12, 2016, dismissing pro se Plaintiff 

Adam C. Cytron’s complaint and granting leave the amend. Doc. 42. The order 

identified deficiencies in Plaintiff’s 101-page complaint, provided guidance on drafting 

an amended complaint, and directed that the amended complaint be filed by 

December 30, 2016. Id. The Court further directed the Clerk to terminate this action if 

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by that date. Id. 

 Plaintiff requested additional time and, on December 29, 2016, the Court granted 

an extension. Doc. 46. The Court ordered that the amended complaint be filed by 

January 20, 2017, and stated that further extensions would not be granted. Id.

 Plaintiff later requested a one-day extension, stating that he was unable to file his 

amended complaint due to issues beyond his control. The Court granted the extension to 

January 23, 2017. Doc. 50. 

Case 2:16-cv-02441-DGC Document 52 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Plaintiff called the Court’s staff to request an additional extension, and the Court 

gave him until January 25, 2017. Doc. 51. The Court again stated that no further 

extensions would be granted. Id. 

 Plaintiff called the Court’s staff again on January 26, 2017, stated that he could not 

file his complaint and did not know when it would be finished, and became so abusive 

during the phone call that the Court’s staff was forced to hang up. This is not the first 

time Plaintiff has acted aggressively toward Court’s staff, both in chambers and in the 

Clerk’s office. Indeed, Court security officers have been sufficiently concerned about 

Defendant’s behavior that they assign an officer to accompany him whenever he enters 

the courthouse. 

 Plaintiff has a general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. 

v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Rule 41(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute 

or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal 

of an action.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the 

Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a 

case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 41(b) appears 

to require a motion. 

In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal, the 

Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice 

to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th 

Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff's repeated 

failure to file an amended complaint prevents this case from proceeding. The case has 

been pending for more than seven months, with little progress, and concerns events that 

occurred more than eight years ago. See Doc. 42 at 7. The fourth factor, as always, 

weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less 

Case 2:16-cv-02441-DGC Document 52 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

drastic alternative is available. The Court has afforded Plaintiff ample time to amend his 

complaint, provided guidance on how to do so, granted repeated extensions, and warned 

him that further extensions would not be granted. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 

Court’s deadlines, and his abusive conduct toward Court staff, convince the undersigned 

that further extensions are not warranted and it is time to terminate this action. 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed as set forth in Doc. 42 and for failure 

to prosecute. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 30th day of January, 2017. 

Case 2:16-cv-02441-DGC Document 52 Filed 01/30/17 Page 3 of 3