Jorgensen v. Bingham County et al

Filing 19

ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint, filed by Jill Jorgensen. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)(Mailed to pla Jorgensen at address on Affidavt at dkt #18 by cjm.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

JILL JORGENSEN,
Case No. 4:11-CV-00016-BLW
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
CITY OF BLACKFOOT, BINGHAM
COUNTY, SHAWN HUNTER, ERIC
WREN, and KATHY DOE,
Defendants.

On July 14, 2011, the Court granted counsel’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw as
Attorney of Record for Plaintiff. The Court explained that withdrawing counsel shall
continue to represent Plaintiff, pursuant to Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 83.6(c)(2) until proof
of service of the Court’s Order on the client had been filed with the Court, or
alternatively, until such time as Plaintiff notifies the Court in writing that it has received
the Court’s Order. The Court further explained that Plaintiff would have twenty-one (21)
days from the filing of the proof of service by the withdrawing attorney to file written
notice with the Court stating how and by whom she would be represented. The Court
also stated that if Plaintiff failed to appear in this action, either in person or through a
newly appointed attorney within that twenty-one (21) day period, such failure shall be
grounds for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice without further notice.
O RDER - 1

Counsel filed the affidavit of proof of service on August 25, 2011.1 More than
twenty-one (21) days have passed since that time, and Plaintiff has failed to appear in this
action, either in person or through a newly appointed attorney. Accordingly, the Court
will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2.

The Court will enter a separate judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.
DATED: September 28, 2011

B. LYNN WINMILL
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

1

The affidavit stated that the Order was served on defendant’s daughter. The reference to
defendant as opposed to plaintiff was clearly a typo. The affidavit indicates that it was served on
plaintiff’s daughter by name.
O RDER - 2