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successor, acting in her official * [UNPUBLISHED]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.
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.
*
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
-2-
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 system-
which 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.
______________________________
-3-