Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_05-cv-00139/USCOURTS-ared-5_05-cv-00139-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

LINDA JO ROBINSON PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 5:05CV139GH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEFENDANT

ORDER

The Order entered on January 12, 2007, is hereby vacated by the Court and the

following is substituted in its stead: 

On October 19, 2006, the Court directed the parties to address the issue raised by

defendant regarding plaintiff’s standing. Plaintiff was directed to file her brief within thirty

days of October 19th Order. On October 23, 2006, defendant’s attorney wrote the

attached letter to plaintiff’s counsel and the Court proposing certain action plaintiff could

take to remedy problems regarding standing and limitations.

On November 29, 2006, the Court entered an Order noting that more than 30 days

had passed since the October 19th Order with no action by plaintiff’s counsel. The Court

directed counsel to take action within twenty days with regard to this case. The Court

noted that counsel is not relieved of his duty to represent plaintiff’s interests just because

he is appointed. The Court also reminded plaintiff’s counsel of the availability of court

funds for reimbursement of expert expenses. 

More than twenty days have passed since the November 29th Order. Plaintiff’s

counsel has still not complied with the Court’s orders. Counsel has not submitted

anything, despite defendant’s guidance as to how to proceed. 

On December 28, 2006, defendant filed a “Response” to the November 29th Order

reiterating the steps necessary for counsel to take so that the case can proceed. On that

same day, plaintiff filed a pro se motion to reinstate her pro se status or to appoint

alternate counsel. On January 5, 2007, plaintiff filed, pro se, a reply to defendant’s

response stating that she has located a family practitioner who is willing to review the

medical records and provide a report.

On July 20, 2005, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order finding that counsel

Case 5:05-cv-00139-SWW Document 68 Filed 01/16/07 Page 1 of 2
should be appointed. Walter Whit Barton was appointed on September 22, 2005. On

February 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion asking that Barton be replaced or dismissed as

he had not responded to her request to amend the complaint or her telephone calls. The

Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s motion, noting that Barton is an experienced attorney

in civil litigation and should be able to adequately pursue plaintiff’s case.

Barton has ignored Orders of this Court and has failed to adequately pursue

plaintiff’s case. The Court remains convinced that appointment of counsel would benefit

the parties and the Court. The Court will relieve Barton as counsel for plaintiff and refers

the case to the Magistrate Judge for appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, the motion tp appoint new counsel is granted; the motion to reinstate

pro se status is denied. Barton is relieved as counsel of record. The case is referred to

the Magistrate Judge for appointment of new counsel. The motion for Order (document

no. 55) is denied as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of January, 2007.

___________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-00139-SWW Document 68 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 2