Allan v. Piper
ORDER denying 54 Motion to Reconsider. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 2/16/2021. (CLG)
CASE 0:17-cv-05131-PJS-DTS Doc. 55 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case No. 17‐CV‐5131 (PJS/DTS)
JODI HARPSTEAD, Commissioner of the
Department of Human Services,
Peter Allan, pro se.
Matthew Frank and Molly Beckius, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY
GENERAL’S OFFICE, for respondent.
This matter is before the Court on petitioner Peter Allan’s motion to reconsider.
ECF No. 54. For the reasons that follow, that motion is denied.
Allan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on
November 16, 2017 challenging the constitutionality of his ongoing civil commitment to
the Minnesota Sex Offender Program.1 ECF No. 1. After receiving briefing from both
parties, Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that Allan’s petition be denied for failure to exhaust his
available state‐court remedies, or in the alternative that Allan’s petition be denied on
Allan’s petition was stayed by order of Chief Judge John R. Tunheim pending
the outcome of Karsjens v. Piper, No. 11‐3659 (DWF/TNL). ECF Nos. 4, 22. On
January 30, 2020, at Allan’s request, Judge Tunheim lifted the stay. ECF No. 25.
CASE 0:17-cv-05131-PJS-DTS Doc. 55 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3
the merits. ECF No. 43. Allan objected, and in an order dated February 1, 2021, the
Court overruled that objection and adopted Judge Schultz’s R&R. ECF Nos. 44, 51.
Judgment was entered the next day. ECF No. 53.
Allan now moves for “reconsideration” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).2
“Motions under Rule 59(e) ‘serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence’ and ‘cannot be used to introduce
new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been
offered or raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Ryan v. Ryan, 889 F.3d 499, 507
(8th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933
(8th Cir. 2006)). Allan’s motion does not identify any “manifest errors of law or fact” or
any “newly discovered evidence.” Instead, Allan merely reiterates the arguments that
he made to Judge Schultz, and that he made to this Court in his objection to Judge
Schultz’s R&R. Accordingly, Allan’s Rule 59(e) motion is denied.
Allan protests that he should not be required to return to state court to exhaust
his remedies, as “it may take another five to seven years to get back to this court.” ECF
Under LR 7.1(j) “a party must not file a motion to reconsider” without the
Court’s prior permission. To obtain permission, a party must “show compelling
circumstances” and must make the request by filing and serving “a letter of no more
than two pages.” Id. Allan made no such request, and he did not have the Court’s
permission to file a motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the Court construes Allan’s
motion as motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and
not as a motion for reconsideration.
CASE 0:17-cv-05131-PJS-DTS Doc. 55 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3
No. 54 at 5; see also ECF No. 51 at 1–2 (noting that Allan began the process of seeking
relief pursuant to the state’s administrative process in 2014). But the fact that the
exhaustion of state‐court remedies is a lengthy process is not a reason to excuse the
clear statutory requirement that Allan present his arguments and all supporting
evidence to the state before seeking relief from this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1);
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004).
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Allan’s motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 54] is
Dated: February 16, 2021
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?