Susan R. Bolton
How Judge Bolton rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bolton
Susan Ritchie Bolton is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Bolton received a commission on October 13, 2000. Judge Bolton assumed senior status on September 1, 2016.
Judge Bolton's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bolton, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Case Management Order - Non-MIDP ↗
- Criminal Order of Referral ↗
- Exhibit Procedures ↗
- Joint Proposed Pretrial Order ↗
Key rules
Motions
A Rule 56.1 statement of facts may be no longer than ten pages, excluding exhibits.
“Statements of fact required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 shall not exceed ten pages in length, exclusive of exhibits.”
Discovery
Call the court promptly for a telephone conference when a discovery dispute arises; written discovery motions require leave.
“If a discovery dispute arises, the parties promptly shall call the Court to request a telephone conference concerning the dispute.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026).
How Judge Bolton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Save Our Sonoran, the environmental assessment’s discussion of the proposal, alternatives, impacts, and consultations supported Bolton’s finding that the agency had taken the required hard look. She denied a preliminary injunction after finding the plaintiff had not shown likely success or a sharply favorable balance of hardships.
“EA 2 discusses the need for the proposal, alternatives to it, the environmental impacts of the proposal and alternatives, as well as the persons and agencies consulted.”
Procedural preferences
In Kastl, Bolton struck late summary-judgment submissions and denied a deadline extension. Counsel had considered seeking an extension before the deadline and had received an earlier warning about untimely filings.
“Plaintiff admits that she considered requesting a stipulated extension but chose not to.”
Cautions
In De Freitas, Bolton denied Rule 11 sanctions after finding that the plaintiff had timely and adequately withdrawn false declarations, although she granted the defendants summary judgment on the remaining claims.
“Plaintiff’s attempt to withdraw the false declarations was timely and adequate.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 114). ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter Judgment in favor of Defendant dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Untimely Objection to Defendant's Proffer of Undisputed Facts and Exhibits and Documents in Support of Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 122).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Filing Deadline (Doc. 126).”
“IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant Lone Mountain's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Supplemental Complaint (Doc. 175).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 160 and 181).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9).”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 107) is granted and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.”
“The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 167) is adopted as the order of this Court; Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 (Doc. 104) is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 87).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. 24)”
“the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment be granted in part and denied in part and that default judgment in the amount of $6,700.30 be awarded to Plaintiff. ... IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter a Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for $1,000.00 in statutory damages, $5,275.00 in attorneys' fees and $425.30 in costs.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion for Sanctions. (Doc. 27)”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 7)”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody and dismissing it with prejudice. (Doc. 1)”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Petitioner's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and for the Appointment of Counsel. (Docs. 1 and 14)”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice.”
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Arizona, not for Judge Bolton: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 135 | 2.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,001 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 335 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 32.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,278 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,126 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,181 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,857 | 20.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,128 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,842 | 9.6 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Bolton with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bolton, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bolton's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace