Van Dyke v. Retzlaff
Filing
151
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Because of Plaintiff's Newly-Discovered Assassination Plot (Dkt. 139 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 4/7/2020. (baf, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
JASON LEE VAN DYKE
v.
THOMAS RETZLAFF, a/k/a DEAN
ANDERSON, d/b/a VIA VIEW FILES LLC,
and VIA VIEW FILES
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-247
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Thomas Christopher Retzlaff’s Motion to Dismiss
Because of Plaintiff’s Newly-Discovered Assassination Plot (Dkt. #139). Having considered the
motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND
This suit concerns statements allegedly made by Defendant about Plaintiff Jason Lee Van
Dyke (Dkt. #113). Defendant’s alleged statements asserted that Plaintiff is a Nazi; a white
supremacist; a pedophile; and a drug addict (Dkt. #113 at p. 12). These purported statements also
portrayed that Plaintiff has a criminal record for abusing women; is involved in revenge
pornography; has engaged in unwanted sexual solicitations; was being treated and medicated for
mental illnesses; suffers from syphilis; and has engaged in other sexual misconduct (Dkt. #113 at
pp. 12–13). Based on these facts, on March 28, 2018, Plaintiff initiated this suit against Defendant,
alleging that Defendant committed libel when he made these allegedly harassing, false, and
defamatory statements about Plaintiff (Dkt. #1, Exhibit 2; Dkt. #113).
It is clear that the parties have a contentious history, which purportedly includes threats
made by Plaintiff against Defendant. In particular, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff made death
threats to Defendant and created a plan to assassinate him (Dkt. #129 at pp. 2–3).
Based on these facts, on March 15, 2020, Defendant filed his motion to dismiss
(Dkt. #139). On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed his response (Dkt. #141).1
Defendant’s motion asks the Court to dismiss the suit as a sanction against Plaintiff for his
purported threats of violence and assassination plot against Defendant (Dkt. #139). Defendant
claims that the Court may do this under its inherent powers (Dkt. #139 at pp. 4–5).
Defendant is correct that the Court has the power to issue such a sanction under certain
circumstances. As the Fifth Circuit stated:
The federal courts are vested with the inherent power “to manage their own affairs
so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” This power is
necessarily incident to the judicial power granted under Article III of the
Constitution. This includes the power of the court to control its docket by
dismissing a case as a sanction for a party’s failure to obey court orders. However,
when these inherent powers are invoked, they must be exercised with “restraint and
discretion.”
Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir. 1995) (footnotes omitted). Importantly,
“[d]ismissal sanctions are a matter within the Court’s discretion and are limited to instances of bad
faith or willful abuse of the judicial process.” Tower v. City of Denton, No. 4:05-CV-302, 2007
WL 2900474, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2007) (citations omitted).
Here, the Court has reviewed the evidence and finds that Defendant has not established
that Plaintiff’s purported actions constitute bad faith or a willful abuse of the judicial process.2 See
id. Accordingly, the Court, in exercising its “restraint and discretion,” does not impose a dismissal
sanction at this time. See Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d at 1417 (footnote omitted).
1
In his response, Plaintiff made objections to Defendant’s evidence (Dkt. #141). The Court considered the evidence
and still sided with Plaintiff. For this reason, the Court does not discuss Plaintiff’s objections.
2
In his argument that the case should be dismissed based on the severity of Plaintiff’s alleged actions, Defendant cited
no cases that were binding on this Court. See (Dkt. #139 at p. 5) (citing cases from the 9th Circuit and Northern
District of Illinois). In addition, the Court is not convinced that such a harsh sanction is demanded by Defendant’s
evidence. Notably, evidence of this purported assassination plot was already presented to a grand jury, who ultimately
determined that the evidence was insufficient to charge Plaintiff with misdemeanor harassment. See (Dkt. #141,
Exhibit 2); see also Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (defining “no-bill”).
2
.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Because of Plaintiff’s
Newly-Discovered Assassination Plot (Dkt. #139) is DENIED.
SIGNED this 7th day of April, 2020.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?