Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03393/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03393-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 610
Nature of Suit: Forfeiture and Penalty - Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3393

___________

James Widtfeldt, doing business as *

James Widtfeldt Revocable Trust, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

United States of America, acting by * Appeal from the United States

and through: United States Department * District Court for the District

of Agriculture; The Farm Service * of Nebraska.

Agency; Ann M. Veneman, or her *

successor, acting in her official * [UNPUBLISHED]

capacity as Secretary of the United *

States Department of Agriculture; *

Monte Fletcher, acting in his official *

capacity as Farm Service Agency *

Executive Director, Holt County, *

the State of Nebraska, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 9, 2005

Filed: May 19, 2005 

___________

Before BENTON, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-3393 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904561
*

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

-2-

Attorney James Widtfeldt brought this action seeking review of a decision of

the United States Department of Agriculture. After Widtfeldt failed to timely file his

brief as the district court*

 had ordered, the court dismissed the case with prejudice for

failure to comply. Widtfeldt moved to reopen arguing he had asked for hard copies

of the court’s orders, his computer was infected with a virus, and he was unable to

obtain the court’s electronic notices due to computer difficulties. The district court

denied the motion to reopen. Judge Kopf specifically stated:

In his motion, Widtfeldt asserts that “[i]n the original filing, [he]

believed he had requested service by hard copy, or by mail, of all

paperwork, in preference to electronic mail service, and no service of the

court orders giving dates were [sic] received by hard copy.” (Filing 21).

The motion further represents that Widtfeldt has experienced problems

with his internet service provider and did not receive electronic notice

of the court’s order.

(APP 68). Judge Kopf found:

Although Widtfeldt appeared pro se in this matter, he is an

attorney licensed to practice law in Nebraska. Records maintained by

the Clerk of the court show that Widtfeldt registered for the court’s

electronic case filing system on March 25, 2004, shortly before the

complaint in this action was filed. Registration by an attorney

constitutes “consent to receive notice electronically and waiver of the

right to receive notice by first class mail,” and an agreement by the

attorney to abide by the court’s rules and regulations for electronic

filing. (Electronic Case Filing System Attorney Registration Form at ¶¶

5, 7 (available on the court’s website, www.ned.uscourts.gov)). Thus,

even if the complaint had requested that Widtfeldt receive paper copies

of filings (and it did not), by registering for electronic filing Widtfeldt

waived the right to receive notice by paper copies.

Appellate Case: 04-3393 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904561
-3-

The electronic records of the court show that only one electronic

notice sent to Widtfeldt was returned as undeliverable, and that this

notice was successfully resent electronically to the address Widtfeldt

specified when registering for electronic filing. (Filing 13.) That email

address is the same address listed for Widtfeldt in the current directory

of the Nebraska State Bar Association. Despite Widtfeldt’s awareness

that he had problems with the email account he specified for receipt of

electronic notice, records maintained by the Clerk of the court show that

Widtfeldt has never logged on to the court’s electronic filing systemwhich would have permitted him to monitor the status of his case.

(APP 68-69).

Widtfeldt appeals asserting the district court abused its discretion in denying

his motion to reopen and in dismissing his appeal. Having carefully reviewed the

record, the briefs, and the applicable law, we disagree. The record shows Widtfeldt

requested electronic notices and the clerk’s records show the notices were

successfully transmitted to Widtfeldt. Further, despite Widtfeldt’s alleged problems

with his electronic mail account, Widtfeldt never logged on to the court’s electronic

filing system, which would have permitted him to monitor the status of his case. Last,

Widtfeldt’s claims of computer difficulties are refuted by the fact that on the day the

district court electronically transmitted the order dismissing the action, Widtfeldt was

online communicating with the clerk’s office. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3393 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Entry ID: 1904561