Fredin v. Middlecamp

Filing 163

ORDER in Response to (162 in 0:17-cv-03058-SRN-HB) Letter to Request Permission to File Motion to Reconsider, (154 in 0:18-cv-00466-SRN-HB) Letter to Request Permission to File Motion to Reconsider. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 6/22/2020. Associated Cases: 0:17-cv-03058-SRN-HB, 0:18-cv-00466-SRN-HB (MJC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Brock Fredin,

Case No. 17-cv-3058 (SRN/HB)
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Lindsey Middlecamp,
Defendant.

Brock Fredin, 1180 7th Ave., Baldwin, WI 54002, pro se.
Adam C. Ballinger, Ballard Spahr LLP, 80 S. 8th St., Ste. 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402;
K. Jon Breyer, Kutak Rock LLP, 60 S. 6th St., Ste. 3400, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for
Defendant Middlecamp.

Brock Fredin,

Case No. 18-cv-466 (SRN/HB)
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Grace Elizabeth Miller, and
Catherine Marie Schaefer,
Defendants.

Brock Fredin, 1180 7th Ave., Baldwin, WI 54002, pro se.
Adam C. Ballinger, Ballard Spahr LLP, 80 S. 8th St., Ste. 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402;
K. Jon Breyer, Kutak Rock LLP, 60 S. 6th St., Ste. 3400, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for
Defendants Miller and Schaefer.

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Brock Fredin’s Letter Requests (17-cv3058 [Doc. No. 162]; 18-cv-466 [Doc. No. 154]), seeking leave to file a motion for
reconsideration. Fredin asks the Court to reconsider its June 16, 2020 Orders (17-cv-3058
[Doc. No. 161]; 18-cv-466 [Doc. No. 153]), in which the Court denied Fredin’s appeal of
Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s May 18, 2020 Orders (17-cv-3058 [Doc. No. 151]/18cv-466 [Doc. No. 143].) In the May 18 Orders, Magistrate Judge Bowbeer ordered Fredin
to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,260 to Defendants’ attorney K. Jon Breyer.
Local Rule 7.1(j) of this Court requires a party seeking reconsideration to first obtain
permission to file such a motion. D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(j). A party may receive permission
only by showing “compelling circumstances.” Id. Motions for reconsideration serve the
limited purpose of “correct[ing] manifest errors of law or fact or . . . present[ing] newly
discovered evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988)
(quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987)).
Plaintiff has not established “compelling circumstances” necessary to obtain leave
to file a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Letter Requests (17-cv-3058
[Doc. No. 162]; 18-cv-466 [Doc. No. 154]) seeking leave to file a motion for
reconsideration are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2020

s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
2