Broussard v. Hollenhorst
- Susan Nelson
- 0:22-cv-00342
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Broussard v. Hollenhorst, Judge Nelson denied reconsideration and declined to consider Broussard’s untimely objections to dismissal of his civil action.
Aaron Rhy Broussard’s civil case was not reopened. The court denied his motion for reconsideration and did not consider his untimely objections; the earlier dismissal of the action remained in place.
What happened
In Broussard v. Hollenhorst, Aaron Rhy Broussard asked the court to reconsider earlier orders in his civil case and considered objections to a recommendation that the remaining claims be dismissed. The case had challenged aspects of his criminal prosecution and sought damages and an order stopping it.
The court had previously dismissed Broussard’s claims against the prosecutors, stayed the remaining claims during his criminal case, and later dismissed the action without prejudice after adopting a recommendation that the remaining claims failed to state a claim. Broussard then filed objections and a motion for reconsideration.
Judge Nelson denied the motion for reconsideration because Broussard repeated earlier arguments and showed no compelling circumstances. The court also declined to consider his objections because they were filed nearly two months after the deadline.
The detailed version
- Broussard v. Hollenhorst · No. 0:22-cv-00342
- Susan Nelson
- Jan. 27, 2025
Background
Aaron Rhy Broussard, representing himself, filed this civil case shortly before his federal criminal trial. His amended complaint primarily challenged his criminal prosecution and sought damages and injunctive relief, including an order stopping the prosecution. He named prosecutors among the defendants.
On March 11, 2022, the court denied Broussard’s request for a temporary restraining order, dismissed his claims against the prosecutors based on prosecutorial immunity, and stayed the remaining part of the case while his criminal prosecution proceeded. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of injunctive relief and dismissed the rest of that appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
After Broussard’s criminal case ended, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended dismissing the remaining civil claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The district court adopted that recommendation in a December 9, 2024 order and judgment was entered on December 10, 2024.
Broussard’s Filings
Broussard filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and a motion labeled “Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment.” He sought reconsideration of both the March 11, 2022 order and the December 9, 2024 order adopting the recommendation.
Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), Broussard had 14 days to object to the recommendation, making his objections due October 22, 2024. Although he dated the objections October 25, 2024, he did not mail them until December 17, 2024.
Court’s Analysis
The court declined to consider the objections because they were untimely. It found that Broussard sent them nearly two months after the deadline, even allowing for mailing time.
The court explained that motions for reconsideration are disfavored and require compelling circumstances under Local Rule 7.1(j). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding in specified circumstances, but a reconsideration motion is not a vehicle for simply repeating or rearguing earlier arguments.
The court found that Broussard repeated arguments previously made in this civil case and his criminal case and did not show compelling circumstances. It therefore denied reconsideration of both the March 11, 2022 order and the December 9, 2024 order adopting the recommendation.
Disposition
The court denied Broussard’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment.” It also declined to consider his objections because they were untimely. This order did not reopen the earlier dismissal of the civil action.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.