Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01453/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01453-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Theresa Garner,

Plaintiff,

v. 

City of Buckeye, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-01453-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel filed an application to withdraw as counsel 

without client’s consent, explaining that there had been “a complete breakdown in the 

attorney client relationship” and that he did not have Plaintiff’s current address or 

telephone number but did have her email address. (Doc. 15 at 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel 

further certified that on April 2, 2019, he emailed Plaintiff to notify her of the status of 

the case and his intention to withdraw, and that on April 12, 2019, he emailed her the 

motion to withdraw. (Id. at 2.)

On April 15, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and 

ordered the Clerk of Court to email the order to Plaintiff at the email address provided by 

her counsel, as well as mail it to her most recent known address. (Doc. 17 at 1.) The 

Court further ordered that “Plaintiff must either retain new counsel or, if she plans to 

proceed unrepresented, file a Notice with the Court confirming or updating her address 

and telephone number by May 7, 2019” and that if Plaintiff failed to take either of those 

steps, the Clerk of Court should dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id. at 1-2.) On 

Case 2:19-cv-01453-DWL Document 22 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

April 26, 2019, the mail sent by post was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff 

neither retained new counsel nor filed a notice updating her contact information by 

May 7, 2019. On May 23, 2019, the Clerk of Court terminated the case. (Doc. 19.)

Over seven months later, on December 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Notice and 

Motion to Reinstate Dismissed Case and Transfer § 1404 & § 1406” (Doc. 21), which is 

currently pending. Plaintiff claims that the harm she alleged in her previous complaint 

has continued, but she fails to cite any rule or law that would support reinstating her case. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Moreover, she does not explain why she failed to follow the 

Court’s April 15, 2019 order requiring her to either retain new counsel or file a notice 

updating her contact information by May 7, 2019, nor does she explain her seven-month 

delay in seeking relief from the dismissal. Granillo v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 2010 WL 

4054132, *1 (D. Ariz. 2010) (“The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision.”);

Reyes v. City of Phoenix, 2018 WL 4377161, *4 (D. Ariz. 2018) (“The issue here is not 

the adequacy of Plaintiff’s pleadings; the issue is her failure to respond and participate in 

the required procedural steps to prosecute her case. Contrary to the arguments made by 

Plaintiff, there is a long line of case law holding pro se litigants to the same standards as 

represented parties in complying with court rules and orders.”); cf., J & J Sports Prods., 

Inc. v. Looney, 2011 WL 6306660, *1 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (reinstating case where excusable 

neglect standard was met). The motion will be denied.

This case has been terminated. The dismissal was without prejudice, so Plaintiff 

may bring a new lawsuit if she wishes to reassert claims raised in her complaint, subject 

to any applicable statutes of limitations.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate this action (Doc. 21) is 

denied.

Dated this 6th day of January, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-01453-DWL Document 22 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 2