USA v. 129.97 Acres Land, et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 146 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 2/27/12 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
129.97 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR
LESS, SITUATED IN DAVIS COUNTY,
STATE OF UTAH; EDWIN M.
HIGLEY; MTGLQ INVESTORS, a
Delaware limited partnership; CARL
BOWN; B.C. PROPERTIES; LYNN A.
JENKINS and ANY UNKNOWN
OWNERS (PARCEL NO. GLC-(mit.)-4),
Case No. 1:97CV0095
Judge Dale A. Kimball
This matter is before the court on Defendant Lynn A. Jenkins’s Motion to Dismiss, filed
February 24, 2012, seeking the court to dismiss the Court’s judgment for failure to follow federal
and state mandates. This Motion to Dismiss is identical to the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Jenkins on January 20, 2012. The court’s February 15, 2012 Memorandum Decision and Order
denying that motion detailed the history of this case, explained that the case has been closed for
years, and warned Jenkins that future such filings would result in contempt sanctions.
Given that the court’s February 15, 2012 Memorandum Decision and Order was not
docketed until February 17, 2012 and was mailed to Jenkins, it is unclear whether Jenkins had
the court’s Memorandum Decision and Order before filing his successive Motion to Dismiss.
Accordingly, the court will not impose sanctions for the February 24, 2012 Motion to Dismiss.
The February 24, 2012 Motion to Dismiss, however, is DENIED for the same reasons provided
in the court’s February 15, 2012 Memorandum Decision and Order. Any future filings in this
long-closed case will result in substantial sanctions for contempt of court. There is no basis for
such filings and Jenkins shall not disrupt the functioning of the court with frivolous filings.
DATED this 27th day of February, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge
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?