Kirk v. COUNTY OF WASHTENAW et al, No. 5:2018cv10107 - Document 62 (E.D. Mich. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER Dismissing Case with Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (SBur)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kirk v. COUNTY OF WASHTENAW et al Doc. 62 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Janis Lee Kirk, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 18-cv-10107 Judith E. Levy United States District Judge County of Washtenaw, Kellie Powdhar, Nicholas Burleson, Sabrina Pattillo, Phuong Le, and Mark Somolenski, Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub Defendants. ________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff originally filed this case on January 10, 2018. (Dkt. 1.) After more than a year of litigation, counsel for plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw. (Dkts. 55, 57.) Counsel stated that “[t]here ha[d] been a complete and total breakdown of the attorney-client relationship to the extent that it has impaired [counsel’s] ability to properly represent Plaintiff . . . .” (Dkt. 57 at 2.) The Court held a hearing on March 26, 2019 and granted the motion to withdraw. (Dkt. 60.) The Court stayed the case for forty-five days to permit plaintiff to retain new representation, notify Dockets.Justia.com the Court that she intended to prosecute the case without a lawyer, or dismiss the case voluntarily. (Id. at 2.) Forty-five days came and went, but no new counsel for plaintiff made an appearance, plaintiff did not indicate whether she intended to proceed pro se, and she has not voluntarily dismissed her case. As a result, on May 15, 2019, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing by May 29, 2019, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. 61.) Plaintiff has not responded. Thus, plaintiff has not shown cause why this case should not be dismissed. She has shown no intention to continue to prosecute this lawsuit. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is available to the district court “as a tool to effect management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts [and] opposing parties.” Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999). “A district court must be given substantial discretion in serving these tasks.” Id. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this case is 2 DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 4, 2019 Ann Arbor, Michigan s/Judith E. Levy JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 4, 2019. s/Shawna Burns SHAWNA BURNS Case Manager 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
