Udoh v. Janssen

Filing 137

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff Emem Ufot Udoh's motions to amend the judgment and grant a new trial 130 , 131 are DENIED. 2. Plaintiff Emem Ufot Udoh's petition for review of a February 8, 2022 Minnesota Court of Appeals decision 134 is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff Emem Ufot Udoh's application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs 135 is DENIED AS MOOT. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 5/9/2022. (RJE)

CASE 0:21-cv-00099-WMW-LIB Doc. 137 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Emem Ufot Udoh,

Case No. 21-cv-0099 (WMW/LIB)
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Vicki Janssen and Paul Schnell,
Defendants.
Before the Court are Plaintiff Emem Ufot Udoh’s motions to amend the judgment
and grant a new trial, (Dkt. 130, 131); petition for review of a February 8, 2022 Minnesota
Court of Appeals decision, (Dkt. 134); and application to proceed in district court without
prepaying fees or costs, (Dkt. 135). For the reasons addressed below, Udoh’s motions are
denied.
BACKGROUND
On January 11, 2021, Udoh commenced this lawsuit against Defendants Vicki
Janssen and Paul Schnell, who work for the Minnesota Department of Corrections. Udoh’s
allegations pertain to his detention at the Minnesota Correctional Facility – Rush City.
Udoh filed an amended complaint on April 2, 2021, alleging that Defendants failed to
provide him with meaningful access to the courts. On October 15, 2021, United States
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
recommending that this Court grant Janssen and Schnell’s motion to dismiss and deny
Udoh’s motion for injunctive relief. On February 15, 2022, the Court adopted the R&R as

CASE 0:21-cv-00099-WMW-LIB Doc. 137 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 3

modified, granted Janssen and Schnell’s motion to dismiss, and denied Udoh’s motion for
injunctive relief. The Court entered judgment on February 16, 2022. Udoh now moves
this Court to amend the judgment and grant a new trial and petitions the Court to review a
February 8, 2022 Minnesota Court of Appeals decision. The Court addresses Udoh’s
requests in turn.
ANALYSIS
I.

Udoh’s Motion to Amend the Judgment and Grant a New Trial

Udoh moves this Court to amend its judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 52(b) and grant a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
Rule 52(b) provides that, within 28 days after the entry of judgment, a party may move the
court to “amend its findings—or make additional findings—and may amend the judgment
accordingly.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). “Rule 52(b) applies to ‘an action tried on the facts
without a jury’ in which the district court makes findings of fact.” Stewart v. Norcold, Inc.,
24 F.4th 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1)). Rule 59 is similarly
predicated on a trial having occurred and provides that the “court may, on motion, grant a
new trial on all or some of the issues—and to any party— . . . after a jury trial . . . or . . .
after a nonjury trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). Here, no trial occurred. Because the Court
cannot grant Udoh relief pursuant to Rule 52(b) and Rule 59, the Court denies Udoh’s
motion brought under those rules.

2

CASE 0:21-cv-00099-WMW-LIB Doc. 137 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 3

II.

Udoh’s Petition for Review of a Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision

Udoh petitions this Court to review a February 8, 2022 order opinion issued by the
Minnesota Court of Appeals. Udoh v. Minn. Dep’t of Corrs., No. A21-1041 (Minn. Ct.
App. Feb. 8, 2022). A federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to exercise appellate
review of a state court decision. Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923); D.C.
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983). Here, the Minnesota Court of
Appeals issued an order opinion and this Court lacks jurisdiction to exercise appellate
review of that order opinion. For this reason, the Court denies Udoh’s petition for review
of the February 8, 2022 Minnesota Court of Appeals order opinion.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff Emem Ufot Udoh’s motions to amend the judgment and grant a new

trial, (Dkts. 130, 131), are DENIED.
2.

Plaintiff Emem Ufot Udoh’s petition for review of a February 8, 2022

Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, (Dkt. 134), is DENIED.
3.

Plaintiff Emem Ufot Udoh’s application to proceed in district court without

prepaying fees or costs, (Dkt. 135), is DENIED AS MOOT.

Dated: May 9, 2022

s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge

3