Carlson v. Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development et al

Filing 72

ORDER: Plaintiff's Post-Judgment Motion, on Remand, for New Trial, to Alter and Amend Judgment, and Relief from Judgment and Order [Docket No. 68 ] is DENIED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on January 27, 2015. (CBC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Stephen Wayne Carlson,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil No. 12-644 (JNE/JJK)
ORDER

Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development; Commissioner
Katie Clark Sieben, in Official Capacity;
and Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton, in
Official Capacity,
Defendants.
In December 2012, the Court adopted a Report and Recommendation, granted
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied Plaintiff’s motion for a
temporary restraining order, and dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed, and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of
certiorari. The United States Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the judgment
of the court of appeals, and remanded the case to the court of appeals for further
consideration in light of Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (2013).
In turn, the Eighth Circuit vacated this Court’s judgment and remanded the case for
further consideration in light of Sprint Communications.
The Court granted the parties an opportunity to submit memoranda of law.
Plaintiff did not submit one; Defendants did. Defendants asserted that the “rationale for
applying Younger abstention to [Plaintiff’s] claims for injunctive relief was undermined
by . . . Sprint Communications,” that the Court’s “independent conclusion that

1

[Plaintiff’s] claims should be dismissed based on the doctrine of res judicata is unaffected
because the doctrine has no logical connection to abstention or the issues decided in
Sprint Communications,” and that the “dismissal of [Plaintiff’s] damages claims pursuant
to the Eleventh Amendment is also unaffected by Sprint Communications.” Concluding
that Younger abstention does not apply and that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal
based on res judicata and the Eleventh Amendment, the Court dismissed the action with
prejudice. The case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Post-Judgment Motion, on Remand,
for New Trial, to Alter and Amend Judgment, and Relief from Judgment and Order.
Defendants opposed the motion.
“The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues” after a
jury trial or after a nonjury trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1). The Court did not dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims after a trial. To the extent Plaintiff moved for a new trial, the Court
denies his motion.
A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure serves “the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or
to present newly discovered evidence.” Holder v. United States, 721 F.3d 979, 986 (8th
Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). A Rule 59(e) motion “cannot be used to
introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have
been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.” Id. (quoting Innovative Home Health
Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998)).
Plaintiff has not demonstrated any manifest errors of law or fact, and he has not presented

2

newly discovered evidence. To the extent Plaintiff moved for relief under Rule 59(e), the
Court denies his motion.
As to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it “is not a vehicle for
simple reargument on the merits.” Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir.
1999); see Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s motion restated
the arguments he had previously made. He has not demonstrated exceptional
circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b). See Arnold, 238 F.3d at 998. To the
extent Plaintiff moved for relief under Rule 60(b), the Court denies his motion.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated
above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Post-Judgment Motion, on Remand, for New Trial, to Alter and
Amend Judgment, and Relief from Judgment and Order [Docket No. 68] is
DENIED.

Dated: January 27, 2015
s/Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

3