Broussard v. Hollenhorst et al
Filing
31
ORDER denying 30 Motion to Reconsider (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 1/27/2025. (MJC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Aaron Rhy Broussard,
Case No. 22-cv-342 (SRN/ECW)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Thomas M. Hollenhorst, et al.,
Defendant.
Aaron Rhy Broussard, Reg. No. 20944-041, USP-McCreary, U.S. Penitentiary, P.O. Box
3000, Pine Knot, KY, 42635, pro se
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the “Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment”
[Doc. No. 30] and Objections to Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. No. 29] filed
by Plaintiff Aaron Rhy Broussard, who appears pro se. For the reasons set forth below, his
“Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment” is denied and the Court declines to consider his
Objections, as they are untimely.
I.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Broussard filed the instant civil action on February 3, 2022, approximately one
month before the start of his federal criminal trial in United States v. Broussard, 19-cr-101
(SRN/ECW). In the criminal case, Mr. Broussard was charged with conspiracy and other
drug-related counts concerning the importation, possession, and distribution of fentanyl
that led to 11 deaths and four instances of serious bodily injury among the customers of his
internet drug business. (Broussard, 19-cr-101, Indictment [Doc. No. 1].)
Contemporaneous with filing the Complaint in the instant civil lawsuit, Mr.
Broussard also filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) [Doc. No. 3] in
which he sought to stop his criminal prosecution from proceeding. On March 7, 2022—
one week before his criminal trial was scheduled to begin—he filed a 54-page Amended
Complaint [Doc. No. 11]. In the Amended Complaint, Mr. Broussard primarily challenged
his criminal prosecution and sought damages and injunctive relief. Among the defendants,
Broussard named the prosecutors in his pending criminal trial. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 10.) In
the criminal proceeding, he sought to postpone his trial due to an alleged “conflict of
interest” that he had created by filing the civil lawsuit. (Broussard, 19-cr-101, Pro Se Mot.
to Disqualify & Quash [Doc. No. 141] at 1–2.)
On March 11, 2022, the Court issued an order in the instant matter denying Mr.
Broussard’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. (Mar. 11, 2022 Order [Doc. No.
12].) The Court also dismissed the portion of the Amended Complaint against the
prosecutors on grounds of prosecutorial immunity and stayed the remaining portion of the
civil case pending resolution of Broussard’s criminal prosecution. (Id.) Four days before
the start of his criminal trial, Mr. Broussard appealed the March 11, 2022 ruling to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which subsequently affirmed this Court’s denial of
injunctive relief and dismissed the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction [Doc.
Nos. 22 & 23].
2
As to Mr. Broussard’s criminal trial, because the Court had already dismissed Mr.
Broussard’s civil claims against the prosecutors, the Court found no conflict of interest and
the criminal trial proceeded on March 14, 2022. (Broussard, 19-cr-101, Mar. 14, 2022
Redacted Tr. [Doc. No. 412] at 16.) On March 31, 2022, the jury convicted Mr. Broussard.
(See Broussard, 19-cr-101, Redacted Jury Verdict [Doc. No. 201].) The Court sentenced
him to a within-Guidelines sentence of life imprisonment. (See Am. Sentencing J. [Doc.
No. 297].)
In Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s October 8, 2024 Order and R&R
[Doc. No. 26] in the instant matter, she lifted the stay and recommended that the remainder
of Mr. Broussard’s civil lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In this Court’s December 9, 2024 Order on the R&R
[Doc. No. 27], the Court noted that Mr. Broussard had not filed objections to the R&R in
the time permitted. Based on Magistrate Judge Wright’s recommendation, and on all of
the files, records and proceedings in the case, the Court adopted the recommendation and
dismissed this action without prejudice, consistent with the R&R. The Clerk of Court
entered judgment on December 10, 2024 [Doc. No. 28].
Mr. Broussard filed his “Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment” on December
20, 2024, along with his Objections to the R&R [Doc. No. 29]. The two filings are identical
and bear a common caption. Mr. Broussard seeks reconsideration of the Court’s March
11, 2022 Order, in which the Court dismissed portions of the Amended Complaint with
prejudice, although judgment was not entered at that time because the Court stayed the
remainder of Mr. Broussard’s claims. He also seeks reconsideration of the December 9,
3
2024 Order Adopting the R&R.
(See Mot. for Reconsideration at 1) (captioned,
“OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. NO. 25], AND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF JUDGMENT [DOC. NO. 12] MEMORANDUM (AND DOC. NO. 27)”).
II.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), Mr. Broussard had 14 days, i.e., until October
22, 2024, in which to file specific written objections to the R&R. Although he dated his
Objections “10/25/2024,” he did not mail them until December 17, 2024. Even allowing
for mailing time, he sent his Objections to the Clerk of Court nearly two months past the
deadline. (See Envelope, Attachment 1 to Objections [Doc. No. 29-1].) Accordingly, the
Court declines to consider Mr. Broussard’s Objections, as they are untimely.
Motions for reconsideration are expressly disfavored by the Court. In order to file
such a motion, “[a] party must show compelling circumstances.” D. Minn. LR 7.1(j).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) only “authorizes relief [from a final judgment, order,
or proceeding] based on certain enumerated circumstances (for example, fraud, changed
conditions, and the like.)” Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 1999). As the
Eighth Circuit has noted, “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not mention motions
for reconsideration.” Id. at 990.
A Rule 60(b) motion, brought as a “motion for
reconsideration,” “is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits,” even where the
movant reargues the merits “somewhat more fully.” Id. at 989–90.
Mr. Broussard’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment” of the March 11, 2022
Order fails to meet this standard. Instead, Mr. Broussard repeats arguments that he has
previously asserted in this case and in his criminal case, and fails to demonstrate
4
compelling circumstances. Accordingly, Mr. Broussard’s “Motion for Reconsideration of
Judgment” of the March 11, 2022 Order is denied. As to his request for reconsideration of
the Court’s December 9, 2024 Order Adopting the R&R, which directed entry of judgment,
it is likewise denied, as he failed to timely object to the R&R and presents no compelling
circumstances warranting reconsideration.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant’s Pro Se “Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment” [Doc. No. 30] is
DENIED.
Dated: January 27, 2025
s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
5
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?